
Class J&XliAl 

KnnV . K4 



%yri W 14 12. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 



A SYSTEM 
OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 



BY 

LEANDER S. KEYSER, D. D. 

PROFESSOR OF ETHICS, THEISM AND CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE IN WITTEN- 
BERG COLLEGE, SPRINGf IELD, OHIO. AUTHOR OF "A SYSTEM 

of general ethics," "a system of natural 

theism/' "the rational test," "in the 

redeemer's footsteps," "contending 

for the faith," etc. 



Second Edition, greatly enlarged 



BURLINGTON, IOWA 
THE LUTHERAN LITERARY BOARD 

1922 



x»» 






Copyright, 1922, by 

R. NEUMANN 
Burlington, Iowa 



X 



5EP23'2< 

ICI.A6S3401 



\ 



A FEW WORDS TO EXPLAIN 

THE original work, which formed the basis of this 
handbook, was only a compend. The first edition, 
though quite large, was speedily exhausted. Since it 
has been out of print, there have been so many calls 
for it, sometimes in large quantities, that both the 
publisher and the author feel justified in issuing the 
present edition. It is cause for hopefulness and for 
gratitude to God that, even in these days of many 
departures from the faith, books of an evangelical 
order are in demand. 

The arguments have been greatly amplified, much 
new material has been added, and the whole book has 
been re-written, and, in many respects, re-cast. In- 
deed, this edition is practically a new work. 

Primarily it is intended for a college and seminary 
text. For this reason the material has been arranged 
in as clear, orderly and logical form as possible, and 
the captions are set out somewhat boldly on the pages 
in various fonts of type. Thus both teacher and stu- 
dent will find it convenient for use; the former in 
assigning lessons and formulating questions, the latter 
in making his preparation for the class-room. How- 
ever, the orderly disposition of the various topics will, 
the author believes, also meet the needs of the inquir- 
ing general reader. 

3 



4 A System of Christian Evidence 

Candor and concern alike compel us to say that 
there is pressing need today for teachers of Christian 
Evidence in our colleges and seminaries to ground 
their students well in the faith of the gospel. There 
is much unbelief, more or less outspoken and aggres- 
sive, in the world today. It is no less true that 
much rationalism, negative Biblical criticism and false 
speculative science are prevalent today in some 
churches and their schools, as well as in the schools 
of the State, The situation demands firmly estab- 
lished believers and stalwart defenders of the faith. 

Perhaps it is needless to say that the author is 
evangelical and conservative in his views. Nor is he 
ashamed to own it. The present is no time to trim 
and palter. He believes in the positive type of Apolo- 
getics. He has little sympathy with that species which, 
under the guise of defending the Christian faith, spends 
more time in attacking the orthodox positions than in 
answering the infidel assailants of the Bible. 

Present-day Apologetics cannot confine its attention 
to infidelity and deism, as did the defenses of the 
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and a large part 
of the nineteenth century ; it must also meet the ration- 
alism and negative Biblical criticism of the times, and 
no less the constant assaults that come from the 
speculative side of science and philosophy. Therefore 
the modern defender of the faith has no light task on 
his hands. May he be prayerful and earnest, and suffi- 
ciently equipped to do his work effectively! 

The author has sincerely tried to avoid epithets. 
Indeed, he has said many kind things about the skeptic, 
and has done his best to treat him fairly. He takes no 



A Few Words to Explain 5 

pleasures in impugning the motives of opponents, nor 
in calling them harsh names ; neither in trying to dis- 
credit their intelligence and scholarship. His earnest 
purpose has been to establish the believer more firmly 
in the Christian faith, and, if possible, to lead the 
doubter to an acceptance of the blessings, joys and 
assurances of Biblical Christianity. Some one has 
aptly said, "If you want to win some, you must be 
winsome." May God help all of us to display more 
of that fine quality in our discussions, so that the issue 
of pure truth may not be clouded by ill feeling! 



L. S. K. 



Wittenberg College, 
Springfield,. Ohio, 
June the 14th, 1922. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
CHAPTER MAIN DIVISION PAGE 

A Few Words to Explain 3 

A General Outline of the System 9 

An Articulated Outline 1 1-22 

PART I 

GENERAL NOTES AND PRIN- 
CIPLES 23-59 

I. Definitions — Christians as Apologists . . 24 

II. Treatment of Doubters — Kinds of 

Doubters 34 

III. Chief Causes of Doubt 43 

IV. History of Apologetics 47 

V. The Methodology of Apologetics . ... 55 

PART II 

THE BIBLE A SPECIAL DI- 
VINE REVELATION 60-162 

VI. General Principles and Facts 62 

VII. Internal Proofs of the Bible 68 

VIII. Internal Proofs Continued 85 

IX. Continuation of the Internal Proofs. . . 95 

X. Continuation of the Internal Proofs. . . 103 

XI. External Proofs of Divine Inspiration 118 

XII. External Proofs Continued 127 

XIII. External Proofs Continued 140 

XIV. External Proofs Continued 147 

XV. External Proofs Continued 158 

7 



8 

CHAPTER PAGE 

PART III. 

CHRISTIAN THEISM AND 

OPPOSING THEORIES . . ..163-193 

XVI. Christian Theism (Definitions and 

Proofs) 164 

XVII. The Anti-Christian Theories 173 

XVIII. The Anti-Christian Theories Con- 

tinued 181 



PART IV 

THE DOUBTER AND HIS DIF- 
FICULTIES 194-215 

XIX. His Disposition — His Difficulties 196 

XX. The Doubter's Difficulties Continued. . 208 



PART V 

THE FAILURE OF INFIDEL- 
ITY 216-229 

XXI. General Observations — Some Infidel 

Achievements 218 

XXII. The Shortcomings of Infidelity 223 

Selected Bibliography 230 

Index 251 



A GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE SYSTEM 



PART I 
GENERAL NOTES AND PRINCIPLES 

PART II 
THE BIBLE A SPECIAL DIVINE REVELATION 



PART III 

CHRISTIAN THEISM AND OPPOSING 
THEORIES 



PART IV 
THE DOUBTER AND HIS DIFFICULTIES 

PART V 
THE FAILURE OF INFIDELITY 



AN ARTICULATED OUTLINE 
PART I 

GENERAL NOTES AND PRINCIPLES 

I. DEFINITIONS. 

i. Of Christian Evidence. 

2. Of Christian Apologetics. 

3. Of the terms Apology and Apologetics. 

4. Of Apology and Apologetic. 

5. Reasons for preferring the word "Evidence." 

6. Of Polemics. 

7. Oi Controversy. 

8. Of Religion. 

9. Of the Christian Religion. 

II. WHY CHRISTIAN^ SHOULD BE CAPABLE 
APOLOGISTS. 

1. Biblical basis. 

2. Rational grounds. 

( 1 ) The use and value of reason. 

a. Men cannot believe the incredible. 

b. Reason a God-given faculty. 

c. Abstract truth not effective. 

11 



12 A System of Christian Evidence 

d. Some may be led by reason. 

e. Few converted through dogmatism. 

f. Christians need to reason or skeptics will think 

they cannot defend their cause. 

g. Skeptics employ reason ; Christians must meet 

them, 
h. Many difficulties may be removed by reason. 

(2) Limits of human reason. 

a. Many problems it cannot solve. 

b. The heathen have had reason. 

c. Reason not above revelation. 

d. Reason not above faith. 

e. Reason unable to give final assurance. 

III. HOW TO TREAT DOUBTERS. 

1. Some practical "Do's". 

( 1 ) Treat them kindly. 

(2) Convince them by sound reason. 

(3) Let your motive be to win them. 

(4) Pray earnestly for them. 

2. Some practical "Do Nots". 

(1) Do not call them dishonest. 

(2) Do not treat them with contempt. 

(3) Do not browbeat and threaten them. 

(4) Do not argue merely for victory. 

(5) Avoid public debates. 

(6) Do not think argument alone will convert 

skeptics. 






An Articulated Outline 1^ 

IV. VARIOUS KINDS OF DOUBTERS, 
i. Honest doubters. 

2. Skeptics. 

3. Infidels. 

4. Free-thinkers. 

5. Secularists. 

6. Cavillers. 

7. Lampooners. 

8. Rationalists. 

9. Liberalists and latitudinarians. 

V. CHIEF CAUSES OF DOUBT. 

1. Real intellectual difficulties. 

2. Moral causes. 

3. Lack of information. 

4. Absence of the spiritual mind. 

5. Inconsistent professing Christians. 

VI. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF APOLOGETICS. 

1. The Apologetic Period (70-350). 

( 1 ) Apologists. 

(2) Opponents. 

(3) General character. 

(4) Apologists and opponents in conflict. 

2. The Polemical Period (250-730). 

3. The Medieval Period (730-1517). 

(1) Defenders of orthodox Christianity. 

(2) Chief heretic. 

4. The Modern Period (1517 to date). 

( 1 ) English Deism. 

(2) French Encyclopedism. 

(3) German Rationalism. 

(4) Popular Infidelity. 



14 A System of Christian Evidence 

VII. METHODOLOGY. 

i. Definition. 

2. Methodology of the present work, 
(i) Note on "Articulated Outline.'' 

(2) The main proposition in Christian Apologetics. 

(3) Other methods criticized. 

(4) Internal and External Evidences. 

(5) Another classification. 

PART II 
THE BIBLE A SPECIAL DIVINE REVELATION 
I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 



The probability of a special divine revelation. 
The possibility of a special divine revelation. 
The need of a special divine revelation. 
Why God made a Book. 
No valid substitute for Christianity. 
Rejection of Christianity means nescience. 
Some definitions. 

( 1 ) Genuineness. 

(2) Authenticity and credibility. 

(3) Integrity. 

(4) Biblical proofs probable, not demonstrative. 

(5) Biblical proofs cumulative. 

(6) Internal proofs. 

(7) External proofs. 

(8) The terms orthodox, conservative, etc. 



An Articulated Outline 15 

II. INTERNAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE IN- 
SPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. 

i. Its profound and rational doctrines. 

(i) The doctrine of God. 

(2) The doctrine of man. 

(3) The doctrine of salvation. 

2. The purity of its ethics. 

3. The unity and consistency of its teaching. 

4. Its historical character. 

5. The soberness of its teaching. 

6. The all-sidedness of its teaching. 

7. Its relevancy to human need. 

(1) The longing for God. 

(2) The natural weakness of human nature. 

(3) The desire for positive assurance. 

(4) Comfort in trial. 

(5) Solution of all problems. 

(6) Desire to be right with God. 

(7) Desire for inner purity. 

(8) Fear of death and hope of immortality. 

(9) Apposite to human psychology. 

8. The wonderful Person of Christ. 

(1) Crucial nature of the thesis. 

(2) His marvelous claims. 

(3) His ethical purity. 

(4) His spiritual insight. 

(5) His calmness, courage and patience. 

(6) Tributes of skeptics. 

(7) Tributes of great believers. 



16 A System of Christian Evidence 

g. The apostles and evangelists as witnesses, 
(i) They were sincere. 

(2) Sober, not credulous and fanatical. 

(3) Competent as witnesses. 

(4) Without worldly power and prestige. 

(5) Their witness to the resurrection. 

a. Importance of this thesis. 

b. The swoon theory. 

c. The vision theory. 

d. The legend theory. 

e. The falsehood theory. 

f . Stolen by enemies. 

g. Stolen by friends. 

h. Positive evidence (many appearances). 

i. Christophanies ceased. 

j. Change in the disciples. 

k. Necessary for assurance. 

1. Variant details. 

m. Proof of the soul's immortality. 

n. The nature of Christ's risen body. 

10. The conversion of Paul. 

( 1 ) Its importance here. 

(2) His conversion unlikely. 

(3) The reality of his conversion. 

(4) His doctrines. 

11. The frankness of the Biblical writers. 

12. The fulfillment of prophecy. 

13. The Biblical claim to inspiration. 

(1) Definition of divine inspiration. 

(2) What the Bible claims. 

(3) The Biblical canon. 



An Articulated Outline 17 

III. EXTERNAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE IN- 
SPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. 

i. The proof from experience, 

(i) A needed distinction. 

(2) Definition of Christian experience. 

(3) The direct assurance of the Bible. 

(4) The witness of the Holy Spirit. 

(5) The contents of religious assurance. 

(6) Superiority of positive assurance over negation. 

(7) Psychical assurance and sense experience. 

(8) The great "cloud of witnesses." 

(9) Christian experience unique. 

(10) Christian experience no delusion. 

a. So many intelligent people could not be duped. 

b. Conversion changes moral character. 

c. Its cardinal factors personal. 

d. God makes His voice known. 

2. Proofs from Christianity's salutary influence. 

(1) Individual examples. 

(2) Influence on communities and nations. 

(3) Reasons for these uplifting influences. 

(4) Why Christianity does not cure all ills. 

(5) Wrongs done in the name of Christianity. 

3. Proofs from history. 

(1) Ancient manuscript. 

a. Codex Sinaiticus. 

b. Codex Vaticanus. 

c. Codex Alexandrinus. 

d. Codex Ephraemi. 

e. Many others. 



18 A System of Christian Evidence 

(2) Helps in determining the text (Old Testa- 
ment). 

a. The Targums. 

b. The Talmud. 

c. The Septuagint. 

(3) Early translations of the New Testament. 

(4) Jewish and Christian care of sacred books. 

(5) An early Syraic version. 

(6) Testimony of church fathers. 

a. Clement of Rome. / 

b. The Epistle of Barnabas. 

c. "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." 

d. Polycarp's witness. 

e. Testimony of Papias. 

f. Witness of Justin Martyr. 

g. Witness of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian. 
h. Testimony of other writers. 

(7) Witness of early secular writers. 

a. Josephus. 

b. Tacitus. 

c. Pliny, the Younger. 

d. Celsus, Lucian, Porphyry! 

4. Proofs from archeology. 

(1) Character and abundance of the evidence. 

(2) Specific instances. 

a. Traditions of creation. 

b. Traditions of the flood. 

c. The Code of Hammurabi. 

d. The Tell el Amarna Tablets 

e. The city of Pithom. 

f. The Hittites. 



An Articulated Outline 19 

g. New Testament confirmations, 
h. Evidence of primitive civilizations, 
i. Early religions. 

5. Proofs from Biblical criticism. 

(1) Definitions. 

(2) Legitimate Biblical criticism. 

(3) Criticism and scholarship. 

(4) The "mediating" criticism. 

(5) Reference to Bibliography. 

6. Proof from the principle of causality. 

7. Proof from the integrity of the Bible. 

8. Proofs from the genuineness of the Biblical books. 
The Pentateuch, the gospels, Acts, Epistles, Reve- 
lation. 

9. Proofs from science. 

( 1 ) All men should love science. 

(2) The Bible often touches the scientific realm. 

(3) Beautiful agreement between the Bible and 
science. 

(4) Scientific opinion changes. 

10. Proofs from the Biblical world-view. 

(1) View the Bible in the large. 

(2) Its view of God. 

(3) Its view of man. 

(4) The true philosophy. 



20 A System of Christian Evidence 

PART III 

CHRISTIAN THEISM AND OPPOSING 
THEORIES 

I. REASONS FOR THIS THESIS. 

II. CHRISTIAN THEISM, 
i. Definitions. 

(i) Of Theism. 

(2) Of Natural Theism. 

(3) Of Christian Theism. 

2. Biblical proofs of the divine existence. 

3. Corroborative proofs of the divine existence. 

(1) The General Argument. 

(2) The Cosmological Argument. 

(3) The Teleological Argument. 

(4) The Moral Argument. 

(5) The Esthetic Argument. 

(6) The Ontological Argument. 

III. ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 
1. Atheism and Materialism. 



Idealism. 

Deism. 

Pantheism. 

Positivism. 

Naturalistic evolution. 

Theistic evolution. 

(1) No proof of spontaneous generation. 

(2) No proof of transmutation of species. 

(3) Evolution not taught in the Bible. 

(4) Nowhere in evidence today. 

(5) Its agnostical origin. 

(6) Its effect on Biblical faith. 



An Articulated Outline 21 

8. Monism. 

9. Agnosticism. 

10. The doctrine of a finite God. 

1 1 . Pluralism. 

( 1 ) Definition. 

(2) Its advocates. 

(3) Its basis. 

(4) Its error as a philosophy. 

12. Pessimism. 

( 1 ) Definition. 

(2) Specimen expressions. 

(3) Errors. 

(4) Contrast of Christian optimism. 

PART IV 
THE DOUBTER AND HIS DIFFICULTIES 

I. HIS DISPOSITION OF MIND. 

1. He should be sincere. 

2. He should not ridicule religion. 

3. He should rid himself of pride of opinion. 

4. He should not think Christians ignorant of the 
difficulties. 

5. He should not think it a merit to doubt. 

6. He should never think doubt a good thing per se. 

II. SOME OF THE DOUBTER'S DIFFICULTIES 
1. General remarks. 



The narrative of creation in Genesis. 
The creation of man and woman. 
Man's fall into sin. 
The history of Cain. 



22 A Sysiem of Christian Evidence 

6. The Noachian deluge. 

7. Israel's crossing of the Red Sea. 

8. God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. 

9. Slaughter of the Canaanites. 

10. Jonah and the whale. 

11. The imprecatory Psalms. 

12. Apparent discrepancies in the Bible. 

13. Why God permits sin and suffering. 

14. Miracles in general. 

15. Why the Bible is not perfectly simple. 

PART V 
THE FAILURE OF INFIDELITY 

I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

1. Infidelity ever the aggressor. 

2. It must now be asked to make good. 

II. POSITIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF IN- 
FIDELS. 

1. In the field of literature. 

2. In the field of science and invention. 

III. SHORTCOMINGS OF INFIDELITY. 

1. It builds no enduring institutions. 

2. It creates no great and helpful literature. 

3. It produces no great works of art. 

4. It stirs doubt, but solves no ultimate problems. 

5. Its doctrine of man one-sided. 

6. It lacks moral dynamic. 

7. It saps the foundation of morality. 

8. A parallel and contrast. 



PART 1 
GENERAL NOTES AND PRINCIPLES 



A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE 

PART I 
GENERAL NOTES AND PRINCIPLES 



CHAPTER I 
DEFINITIONS— CHRISTIANS AS APOLOGISTS 

I. DEFINITIONS. 

1. Of Christian Evidence. 

Christian Evidence is the scientific proof of the divine 
authority of the Christian religion. 

2. Of Christian Apologetics. 

Christian Apologetics is the scientific vindication of 
the divine authority of the Christian religion. 

3. Of the terms Apology and Apologetics. 

These words are derived from the Greek word apologia 
(apo and logos), meaning a discourse in favor of. In 
popular language the word "apology" usually means an 
excuse for some offense or mistake, and the word "apolo- 
getic," used as an adjective, means "an undignified or 
servile manner." 1 However, in scientific usage these 
words bear no such meaning, but signify a systematic 
and closely reasoned defense and vindication. 

i. Garvie: "A Handbook of Christian Apologetics," p. 2. 

24 



General Notes and Principles 25 

4. Of an Apology and an Apologetic. 

An Apology, in the theological sense, is a defense 
against a special attack on the Bible, or a part of the 
Bible, or some phase of the Christian religion. An Apol- 
ogetic is an attempt to develop a complete system of 
proof in favor of Christianity. The term, "Christian 
Apologetics," means the same thing. Usually the plural 
form of the word is employed, although, when the article 
is used, it is proper to say "an Apologetic ;" without the 
article scholars generally say "Apologetics." 

Examples of the different uses of these terms are as 
follows : Justin Martyr's two "Apologies" and Bishop 
Watson's "Apology" are partial defenses ; Ebrard's 
"Christian Apologetics" and Garvie's "Handbook of 
Christian Apologetics" aim at as complete and systematic 
a treatise as possible. 2 

5. Reasons for preferring the word "Evidence." 

In the title of this work we use the term "Evidence" 
rather than "Apologetics." Our reasons are as follows : 
(i) The first word carries a more positive sense; (2) 
It may be used without explanation to include both proof 
and defense; (3) It may be easily understood by all, 
needing no explanation, because it has no bad sense. 
However, in the body of this work we shall often use the 
word "Apology" and its derivatives, but always in the 
scientific sense. 3 

6. Of Polemics. 

Polemics is contention, not with infidels outside of the 
Christian Church, but with heretics within the Church. 

2. The distinction between an Apology and Apologetics is not always 
as sharply drawn as it is here. Some writers use the terms in an elastic 
way. 

3. Cf. Rishell: ''The Foundations of the Christian Faith," pp. 12, 13. 



26 A System of Christian Evidence 

The term may be used in both a good and a bad sense. In 
the good sense it means contending seriously and honestly 
for the truth. In the bad sense it means over-fondness 
for discussion, accompanied with more or less bitterness 
of feeling. 

7. Of Controversy. 

Controversy means vigorous debate. This Word is 
sometimes used in a good sense, but, as a rule, it signifies 
discussion in a more or less excited and belligerent spirit ; 
hence the controversial temper is not likely to be judicial 
and fair. 

8. Of Religion. 

Religion (perhaps from religo, religare, to tie back or 
fasten) is man's relation to the supernatural, involving 
communion and service. 

9. Of the Christian Religion. 

The Christian religion is man's relation to God through 
the mediation of Jesus Christ, according to the teaching 
of the Holy Scriptures. 

II. WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE CAPABLE 
APOLOGISTS. 

1. Biblical basis. 

The Bible has a marked apologetic element. God, 
Christ and the inspired writers did not fail to defend the 
truth when it was opposed and assaulted, nor did they 
permit sin and error to go unrebuked. The whole book of 
Job is an attempt at a vindication of God's ways to men, 
and in the last chapters Jehovah Himself takes a part in 
the debate and brings it to a close. Many of the Psalms 



General Notes and Principles 27 

l 

give cogent reasons for righteousness and obedience (i, 
2, 14, 19, 33, 119). Psalm 119 contains 176 verses, in all 
but two of which there is some strong argument in favor 
of God's word, statutes, judgments, testimonies, etc. 

Note that at one place God Himself condescends to 
reason with men (Isa. 1:18) : "Come now, and let us 
reason together, saith the Lord," etc. In another place 
God challenges His people thus (Isa. 41 :2i) : "Produce 
your cause, saith Jehovah ; bring forth your strong rea- 
sons, saith the King of Jacob." 

Christ often defended Himself and His teaching (Matt. 
12:24-37; John 5:i9-47; 7:i5-24; 8:30-32, 46, 47). Note 
the first passage cited : Christ was accused of casting out 
devils through Beelzebub; did He sit meekly and quies- 
cently by without defending Himself and denying the 
false allegation? 

Paul frequently reasoned with the Jews and others 
(Acts 17:2; 18:4,19; 24:25; 1 Thess. 5:21). Note his 
classical defense of himself and his doctrines before 
Agrippa ; also his powerful apologetic discourse at Mar's 
Hill in Athens. Romans and Galatians are apologetics 
in favor of justification by faith and salvation by grace 
against Jewish legalism. James argued strongly for good 
works as the fruit of faith ; St. John for love as the 
actuating principle of life. Note two classical passages 
enjoining the duty tof defending the faith (1 Pet. 3:15) : 
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts ; and be ready 
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a 
reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and 
fear ;" Jude 3 : "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to 
write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful 
for me to write, and exhort you to contend earnestly for 



28 A System of Christian Evidence 

the faith which was once for all delivered unto the 
saints." 

Thus there is good Biblical ground for Christians to be 
earnest defenders of the truth. 4 

2. Rational Grounds. 

(i) The use and value of human reason. 

a. Men cannot believe what seems to them to be in- 
credible; therefore the rational grounds of faith should 
be shown. If possible, the Christian should prove that 
it is not unreasonable to accept the Bible as God's Word 
and to believe in Jesus Christ as the world's Redeemer. 

b. Reason is a God-given faculty, being an innate 
part of man's psychical constitution ; therefore it should 
be used in religion as well as elsewhere. 

c. Abstract truth is not very strong per se; therefore 
it must become incarnated in human champions. Some 
men say loftily : "Do not be solicitous about the truth ; 
the truth will take care of itself !" If that is correct, why 
does any one ever take the trouble to defend and promote 
the truth? Why did Christ come into the world if it 
was not to make divine truth plain and appealing to men's 
apprehension? Why did the apostles reason, preach, 
teach, sacrifice and even die, if it was not to uphold and 
disseminate the truth. Ah ! the saying, "Truth will take 
care of itself," is the motto of laziness and apathy. 

d. Some men may be led to Christ by reason, just as 
others may be led by persuasion, kindly treatment, etc. A 
gracious word or deed will appeal most forcibly to some 
persons ; a reasoned process to others. Why not employ 

4. A good book on this thesis is C. F. Scott's "The Apologetic Ele- 
ment in the New Testament." 



General Notes and Principles 29 

both methods as the different cases may require? Paul 
declared that he became "all things to all men, if by all 
means he might win some." 

e. Few men can be led to Christ by mere dogmatism 
and assertion. They resent such a method. They are 
much more likely to be amenable to reason, especially if 
they are thinking and educated men. 

f. If Christians do not defend their religion, skeptics 
will be likely to think that they cannot. Will not that en- 
courage them to continue in their unbelief ? 

g. If opponents employ reason and scholarship, 
Christians must be able to meet and match them on their 
own ground. Not all Christians can be thus equipped, but 
surely some men should be trained to meet scholarly lib- 
eralists and unbelievers. 

h. Many difficulties may really be removed by reason. 
If Christians can succeed in removing them, will not that 
dispose skeptics to go to Christ in prayer and faith to find 
assurance of truth and salvation ? Dr. Francis L. Patton 
once said wisely : "Christianity will be denied a hearing 
in the court of feeling, once she has been non-suited at the 
bar of reason." 5 The conclusion is that, while Christians 
should not be too much engaged in discussion, they should 
be able to produce good reasons for their faith when oc- 
casion requires. The Christian Apologist has a divine 
vocation just as every other useful man has. 6 

(2) Limits of human reason. 

However, too much stress and reliance should not be 
placed on rational processes, and for the following rea- 
sons : 

5. "Biblical and Theological Studies" (by Princeton Professors), p. 24. 

6. See a good discussion on this point in Rishell's "The Foundations 
of the Christian Faith," pp. 15, 16. 



30 A System of Christian Evidence 

a. There are many problems that mere human intel- 
lection cannot solve. Here are some of them : What is 
matter ? What is mind ? How are they correlated in the 
human brain? What is the origin of matter? How did 
mind originate? How is self-consciousness possible? 
How can the will be free? How can the will determine 
itself ? The fact is, we are surrounded on every hand with 
insoluble mysteries. Lord Kelvin admitted that he did 
not know what electricity and magnetism are. 7 
Edison once said that, although he had been studying 
and experimenting with electricity for many years, and 
had invented many useful contrivances, yet he does not 
know whether it is a substance or only a force. In view 
of these facts, why should men expect to solve all the 
profound problems of religion by a mere rational process ? 

b. The heathen have had unaided human reason 
throughout all history: have the results been satisfactory? 
Not one heathen nation has been able, by its unaided ef- 
forts, to rise into monotheism. In philosophy note how 
hazy was the teaching of the best Greek and Roman phi- 
losophers on the primary questions of God, origins, ethics, 
free will, sin, salvation and immortality. Socrates hoped 
the soul was immortal. Plato hoped that the gods would 
forgive sin, but could not be sure that they either could 
or should. Moreover, many of the human philosophies 
differ so fundamentally that they are mutually destruc- 
tive. If Democritus was right, Plato was basically wrong, 
and vice versa. Spinoza's philosophy, if true, would un- 
dermine the very foundations of Kant's system. 

c. Reason is not above divine revelation; else there 
would be no need for the latter, and God might as well 

7. Russell: "Lord Kelvin, His Life and Work," p. 90. 



General Notes and Principles 31 

separate Himself from the world. The failure of English 
Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is a 
historical proof of the inefficiency of unaided human rea- 
son. The same may be said of French atheism and Ger- 
man rationalism. 

d. Reason should not be estimated above faith; for 
then all people would want to decide everything by rea- 
son, and there would be no room for the exercise of faith. 
Yet the faith faculty is an innate part of human 
psychology. Everybody has to "walk by faith" through 
a large part of life. The first acts of a little child are not 
acts of reason, but of faith, which seems to be instinctive 
and certainly is necessary to the child's existence. Faith 
is requisite in all human intercourse. Without it society 
could not exist, trade could not flourish, governments 
could not arise and endure. The man who demands only 
reason in religion should remember how often he must 
exercise faith in order to live at all. In human society 
faith is a good thing, and wherever it can be safely exer- 
cised, that fact connotes a normal condition of affairs ; 
whereas where doubt and suspicion prevail in human re- 
lations, there is evidently an abnormal condition. Mutual 
confidence is a good thing per se. It is only when some- 
thing abnormal has entered into human relationships 
that distrust arises. 

It is a mistake to think that Christian faith is blind 
credulity. For three reasons, at least, that cannot be true : 

(a) Christian faith is begotten in the human heart by 
the Holy Spirit, for Paul says (Eph. 2:8), "it is the gift 
of God." It is not probable that the Holy Spirit would 



32 A System of Christian Evidence 

make men credulous and at the same time give them a 
joyous assurance of pardon, salvation and truth. 

(b) The Bible itself warns men against being too 
ready to believe, and enjoins on them to be discrimin- 
ating. Christ said, "Take heed how ye hear and what 
ye hear" (Mark 4:24; Luke 8:18). Also: "Beware of 
false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but 
inwardly are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). Here is 
Paul's injunction: "Prove all things; hold fast to that 
which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). Again: "For God gave 
us not a spirit of fearfulness, but of power and love 
and soberness" (2 Tim. 1:7). Here is another apostle's 
judicious warning: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, 
but prove the spirits, whether they are of God ; because 
many false prophets are gone out into the world" (John 
4:1). Thus the Bible itself cautions believers against 
being gullible. 

(c) Many men and women of vast learning have 
faith in Christ and the Bible. It is unreasonable to be- 
lieve that all of them have been stricken with supersti- 
tion and blind credulity. They would hardly be firm be- 
lievers if they did not have good reasons for their faith. 

Reason and Christian faith should never be regarded 
as antagonistic. Sometimes when reason cannot solve its 
problems, faith can, and this is especially true in the 
sphere of religion, as millions of people in the history of 
the world have testified and as many will testify today. 
Since God has given to men both faculties, that of faith 
and that of reason, it is rational to believe that Pie is 
pleased with the proper use of both, each in its appointed 
way. 



General Notes and Principles 33 

8. Human reason cannot give the final word of assur- 
ance in matters of religion. Experience proves this ; 
for, however expert the Christian apologist may be, he 
cannot convert men by reason. He may be able to lead 
them to Christ in repentance and faith, but then the Holy 
Spirit must give the assurance of truth, pardon and salva- 
tion. No one should suppose that reason can usurp the 
place and function of the Holy Spirit. 

This question may be asked at this point by the inquir- 
ing mind : Why cannot reason say the final word in re- 
ligion ? That is an apposite question ; let us try to answer 
it. No doubt God knew that, if men could solve all their 
problems by mere human reason, they would become 
proud and would neglect their Maker. That surely would 
not have been conducive to their best moral and spiritual 
welfare. How much harm pride and vainglory do in the 
world ; much of our trouble may be traced more or less di- 
rectly to them ! How much better it is for people to be 
humble ! How much more pleasant and cordial are their 
associations ! When you note how rationalists strut about 
and plume themselves on their superior learning, and how 
they scoff at other people whom they accuse of lack of 
"scholarship," you can see clearly the baleful effects of 
human pride. Christ said truly: "Whosoever exalteth 
himself shall be humbled ; and whosoever humbleth him- 
self shall be exalted" (Matt. 23.12). 8 

8. Cf. a discrimination discussion on the function of reason in religion 
in Heinrich Schmid's "The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church" (English translation), pp. 29-38. 



CHAPTER II 

TREATMENT OF DOUBTERS— KINDS OF 
DOUBTERS 

III. HOW TO TREAT DOUBTERS. 1 

1. Some practical "Do's." 

(i) Treat them kindly. If you would win some to 
the Christian faith, you must be winsome. The Christian 
simply defeats what should be his real purpose, when he 
stirs resentment in the mind of the doubter. 

(2) If you can, convince them by sound reason. Per- 
haps you can thus remove some of their intellectual diffi- 
culties. There are doubters who in their hearts would 
prefer to believe ; for they know that skepticism gives no 
peace to the heart and solves no problems for the intel- 
lect. The writer himself passed through such an expe- 
rience, and he is thankful that he had friends who gave 
him kindly reasons for believing in Christ and the Bible. 
More than one skeptic has made this confession to a be- 
liever: "I would do anything in my power if I could 
believe and feel as you do!" Then why should we not 
try to help the doubter by removing as many obstacles as 
possible from his path, so that he may be led to go to 
Christ Himself for conversion? Who knows that some 
of us may not have a divine vocation to win doubters in 
this way ? Only we must be careful not to usurp the office 

1. In no other work on Christian Evidence has the author seen a 
treatment of the subjects dealt with in this chapter and the next. His 
experience with doubt and doubters leads him to believe that the discussion 
here presented will not be without value. 

34 



General Notes and Principles 35 

of the Holy Spirit, who alone can regenerate the soul and 
give assurance of truth. 

(3) Let your dominant motive be to win them to the 
truth. Christians should keep their motives pure. Argu- 
ment merely for its own sake never does good. But if 
the purpose is to win men to Christ, then it may be help- 
ful to reason with them. 

(4) Pray earnestly for doubters. What they really 
need is conversion. By prayer you will send the Holy 
Spirit into their hearts and consciences, and He may 
bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ. Prayer for 
them will also help the believer to love his skeptical ac- 
quaintances, and this will lead him to treat them with 
kindly consideration. 

2. Some practical "Do Nots." 

(1) Do not call them dishonest. There are several 
reasons for this advice : a. In many cases you cannot 
know for a certainty that they are dishonest; therefore 
to accuse them of it would be wrong, b. Christians 
who have never had any special doubts are scarcely in a 
mental and spiritual condition to sympathize with, and 
pronounce judgment on, those who are troubled with 
doubt. It is much better not to judge their motives. 
There are skeptics who have real intellectual difficulties, 
c. Even if doubters were dishonest, to accuse them of 
dishonesty would only anger them ; and then there would 
be no hope of doing them service. The right kind of 
treatment might win them to a more unbiased frame of 
mind. 

(2) Do not treat them with contempt. That is not 
the Christian way ; nor will it win them to a more favor- 



36 A System of Christian Evidence 

able consideration of Christian truth. Fair and respectful 
treatment of skeptics will do much to remove their objec- 
tions to Christianity. They read church history, and find 
that so often professed Christians maltreated and perse- 
cuted their opponents, and for this reason they suspect 
that all believers even today have the same spirit of con- 
tumely and hatred. Let us display the disposition that 
Christ showed to the erring. 

(3) Do not browbeat and threaten them. They will 
simply resent such dogmatism. To quote the minatory 
passages of Scripture at them while they are in the skep- 
tical frame of mind will do no good, but only harm ; be- 
cause they question the very authority you are citing. 
Their reply will invariably be : "Prove to us first that 
the Scriptures are true, and then your quotations from 
them will be pertinent." The only way in which Biblical 
quotations will be effective will be to show that they are 
rational and salutary ; that Biblical teaching is always on 
the right and reasonable side. For example, if the skeptic 
declares that he believes in true morality, you ought to be 
able to show him that the Bible inculcates the deepest, 
highest and most inherent ethical principles, like this, 
"Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right 
spirit within me ;" or this : "Righteousness and justice are 
the foundation of thy throne, O God." Take another 
example : If the skeptic points to some passage of Scrip- 
ture which indicates God's severity toward sinners, as in 
the Noachian deluge or the destruction of Sodom and 
Gomorrah, the apologist can cite many passages which 
prove Him to be merciful and kind and full of compas- 
sion and ever ready to forgive all who repent of their sins 
and turn to righteousness. 



General Notes and Principles 37 

(4) Do not argue zvith skeptics merely to gain a 
polemical victory. That is a worldly ambition, and leads 
to unnecessary and heated controversy. The Christian 
should keep his motives unsullied. 

(5) Avoid public debates with unbelievers, if you can 
honorably do so. The writer knows by experience that 
such discussions seldom accomplish good. The reasons 
are evident : a. In a public debate each side is apt to think 
more of victory than of truth, b. Such a discussion will 
give the infidel an opportunity to abuse Christian people 
and suggest doubts which may disturb many minds 
throughout life. c. As a rule, a public debate ends in a 
quarrel, and leaves the people of the community divided 
in sentiment just as they were before, with added ill will. 

However, there may be times when the Christian apolo- 
gist is challenged to a public debate in such a way that he 
cannot decline without being charged with cowardice. 
Perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, therefore, he is 
practically compelled to accept the challenge. In that 
case, he should make thorough preparation, and decide 
that, whatever his opponent may do, he will conduct his 
part of the discussion in a fair, honorable and judicial 
way, without allowing his temper to be ruffled. 

(6) Do not think you can convert the skeptic by 
reason. That is the special function of the Holy Spirit. 
Some people can be helped by reason just as others 
can be helped by kindness and persuasion; but in no 
case can human instrumentalities produce regenera- 
tion and the inner assurance of truth and salvation. 
By being all things to all men, you may be able to 



38 A System of Christian Evidence 

lead some of them to Christ, who alone, by His Holy 
Spirit, can convert the soul. 

IV. VARIOUS KINDS OF DOUBTERS. 

1. Honest doubters. 

Honest doubters are those who have real intellectual 
difficulties, and are willing to have them resolved. 
They do not love doubt for its own sake. As a rule, 
the thoroughly honest doubter will be converted sooner 
or later, and that for two reasons : 

(i) God will not forsake an earnest inquirer, but 
will come to him by His providence and grace in such 
a way as to lead him into the light. 

(2) The thoroughly honest doubter will be willing 
to investigate in all reasonable ways. Perhaps for a 
time he will try to solve his problems by intellection; 
but when he finds, as he will, that this method leads to 
no definite results, he will investigate in other ways 
that are recommended to him. The Bible points out 
the way of assurance (John 7:16,17): "Jesus there- 
fore answered them, and said, My teaching is not 
Mine, but His that sent Me. If any man is willing 
to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether 
it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself." And 
what is God's will? It is that men should pray for 
light, should repent of their sins, should be willing to 
believe on Christ if He is proved to be the world's 
Redeemer. Here is a method of searching for the 
truth that the honest doubter will not decline to follow. 
When he sees, too, that this method is recommended 
by many people who bear testimony to its efficacy in 



General Notes and Principles 39 

their own experience, he will not refuse to enter the 
spiritual laboratory in his search for truth. 

2. Skeptics. 

Strictly speaking, skeptics are mere doubters. How- 
ever, in the popular estimation, the word skeptic has 
come to mean those who are more or less aggressive 
in their opposition to Christianity. 2 

3. Infidels. 

Infidels are avowed unbelievers. Any person who 
does not accept the Bible as true is an infidel. There 
are various types of infidels, some being deists, some 
theists, some pantheists, some atheists, and some ag- 
nostics. All persons who reject the Bible and the Chris- 
tian system are called infidels. 

4. Free-thinkers. 

Free-thinkers are those who claim the right to 
think for themselves. Of course, most men, in the 
strict sense, make the same claim ; for few people 
would care to admit that they allow others to do their 
thinking for them. However, in the popular mind, the 
so-called "free-thinkers" are practically the same as 
infidels. 

5. Secularists. 

This term stands for a class of unbelievers who 
profess to care only for the present life, and who say, 
"Let the future take care of itself." One of these 
men declared, in a public address, that his class of 
thinkers "do not deal much in futures." A noted 
infidel of the nineteenth century made the boast that 

2. An extreme skeptic is sometimes called a Pyrrhonist, after Pyrrho, 
the founder of a school of skeptics in Greece about 365-275 B. C. He 
taught that all perceptions are of doubtful validity. Thus we see how 
ancient skepticism is. 



40 A System of Christian Evidence 

he had all he could do to take care of one world at a 
time ; therefore he would take care of the present world, 
and let the future take care of itself. He was wrong, 
however, in thinking that all men are afflicted with 
the same mental impotency as himself. Unbelievers 
today do not like to be called "infidels, " but prefer 
to be known as "Secularists" and "Rationalists." They 
seem to think that the former term carries with it, at 
present, a good deal of opprobrium. 

6. Cavillers. 

This term is used to designate those who haggle 
about small matters. They are also called carpers. 
As a rule, they seek for unimportant historical and 
other difficulties in the Bible (as, for example, where 
Cain got his wife), while they fail to consider the great 
and comprehensive philosophy, world-view, ethical and 
spiritual teaching, and the plan of redemption set forth 
in the Holy Scriptures. The person who will look at 
the doctrines of the Bible in a large way, from the 
creation of the universe to the destiny prepared for 
man, cannot be a caviller. 

7. Lampooners. 

This term designates those who use ridicule rather 
than argument. Other terms that mean practically the 
same thing are flouters, gibers, jeerers. These terms 
connote a certain degree of coarseness and ribaldry. 
Deriders and satirists also resort to ridicule, but it is 
of a more refined and acute kind. 

8. Rationalists. 

This class make human reason the norm of judg- 
ment. As a rule, they mean by the term that reason 



General Notes and Principles 41 

is either above or against the Bible. They also mean 
their own reason, not that of those who differ with 
them. All their contentions seem to assume that 
Christian believers do not and cannot employ rational 
processes. Reason is their idol, and they leave little 
or no room for faith and the Bible. 

There are two classes of rationalists. The term 
originally meant those who do not wholly reject the 
Bible, but accept only those parts of it that are sup- 
posed to agree with reason. Many of the Biblical 
critics (see next section) are rationalists of this school. 
These are the rationalists of Germany — who are not 
infidels in the strict sense. 

The other class of rationalists are outright infidels, 
simply calling themselves by a different name than the 
historical one. Once they preferred to be called 
"secularists" (see section 5 above), but now they call 
themselves rationalists because they profess to be 
guided only by human reason, 8 while all who differ 
from them are incapable of using that faculty in an 
intelligent and unbiased way. To this school belongs 
the "Rationalist Press Association" of Great Britain, 
which has many followers and publishes an extensive 
literature, all of which attacks the Christian faith. 
The "rationalism and materialistic monism" of Eng- 
land are "professedly based on Darwinism." 4 There are 
also "Rationalist Societies" (so named by themselves) 
in various cities of the United States, whose object is 
to conduct a campaign against the Christian Church. 

3. Vide George Henslow's "Present-Day Rationalism Critically Exam- 
ined," Chap. II. 

4. Henslow, ut supra, Chap. III. 



42 A System of Christian Evidence 

9. Liberalists and Latitudinarians. 

These terms designate those who have some degree 
of Christian belief, but reject the orthodox view of the 
Bible and of the Christian system. Of course, there 
are various shades and degrees of liberalism, some of 
its advocates accepting more and some less of the 
evangelical system. While they call themselves 
"liberal/' because they think themselves unfettered in 
their thinking, they are frequently intolerant of con- 
tradiction and extremely derisive toward orthodoxy. 
The so-called "New Theology" belongs to this category. 
The words "liberalist" and "latitudinarian" mean 
practically the same thing, though the latter perhaps 
carries the idea of a wider departure from evangelical 
standards. 



CHAPTER III 
CHIEF CAUSES OF DOUBT 

V. CHIEF CAUSES OF DOUBT 1 

1. Real intellectual difficulties. 

It has already been said that there are honest doubt- 
ers. Many people for a time become sorely perplexed 
with some of the difficulties of religion. Perhaps 
there are few thinking Christians who do not pass 
through a period of doubt at some time in their lives. 
Charles Spurgeon was wont to say that he was sur- 
prised at the weakness of the arguments adduced by 
infidels; he felt that, in view of his own experience 
with doubt, he could give them a good many "point- 
ers" ; they did not really seem to sound the depths of 
doubt. Thus skeptics should not imagine that Chris- 
tian people have not had their times of mental per- 
plexity. 

2. Moral causes. 

It should be said kindly, but said nevertheless, that 
some men are unbelievers because their lives are evil, 
and they do not want to amend them, as the Bible 
requires. Note its demands : "Wash you, make you 
clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before 
Mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well" (Isa. 
i :i6, 17) ; "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: 

t. On this subject we recommend an old book (1841): David Nelson's 
"The Cause and Cure of Infidelity." In its day it was very effective on 
account of its keen, direct and forceful manner of presentation. Nelson 
himself was rescued from infidelity in an unusual and interesting way, and 
the story of his experiences with infidels is often piquant. 

43 



44 A System of Christian Evidence 

but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have 
mercy" (Prov. 28:13); "Except ye repent ye shall all 
likewise perish" (Luke 13:3) ; "If we confess our sins, 
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to 
cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that 
we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word 
is not in us" (1 John 1 19, 10). 

So the skeptic should scrutinize his motives. Per- 
haps he does not want the Bible to be God's book, 
because it rebukes his manner of life, and threatens 
him with condign punishment. However, Christian 
workers should remember that even the kind of skep- 
tics just described may sometimes be won to Christ 
by kindly treatment and cogent reasoning. 

3. Lack of information. 

Some doubters have not studied the Bible carefully. 
They have gone through it in a fragmentary way, 
chiefly to pick flaws, but have not mastered its teach- 
ing in a large and comprehensive way, so as to grasp 
its wonderful and coherent system of truth, its world- 
view. If they would do this, they would likely be 
won by its uplifting and rational character and would 
not higgle about small and unimportant matters. 

Again, how many avowed skeptics have ever read 
and studied a scientific work on Christian Apologetics 
or Theology? As a rule, unbelievers are not even 
aware of the existence of the large number of works 
on Christian Evidence that have been written from the 
beginning of the Christian era to the present time. 

4. Absence of the spiritual mind. 

Perhaps this is one of the chief sources of skepti- 
cism. Spiritual things can be understood and appre- 



General Notes and Principles 45 

ciated only in a spiritual way. While the Bible 
touches on many subjects, yet it is pre-eminently a 
spiritual book, containing spiritual doctrines and mes- 
sages. To use an analogy, a person with no appre- 
ciation of poetry would hardly be competent to judge 
of the merits of Tennyson's lyrics. So a person who 
has no spiritual appreciation would not be likely to 
understand and receive the spiritual message of the 
Bible. "The natural man receiveth not the things of 
the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him ; 
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually 
discerned" (i Cor. 2:14). 

However, we hope no skeptic will take offense at 
this plain speech. It is not meant in an ungenerous 
spirit, nor as a reflection on any man's intellectual 
competency. Neither would we want the doubter to 
abandon the processes of thought and investigation. 
Our only purpose is to show him that, in the end, the 
only way to obtain assurance regarding spiritual 
realities is through spiritual enlightenment and exper- 
ience. 

5. Inconsistent professing Christians. 

It must be said in all fairness that inconsistent pro- 
fessors of religion help to make skeptics ; indeed, here 
is one of the most fruitful sources of skepticism. Such 
professed Christians put the very argument which the 
skeptics want into their mouths. If there were no 
hypocrites inside the Church, there would be fewer 
infidels outside the Church. An immoral church mem- 
ber may do more harm in a community than a dozen 
infidels. Such inconsistency cannot be too severely 
rebuked, and no palliation should be offered for it. 



46 A System of Christian Evidence 

The Bible itself is clear and positive on this very 
point. "Abstain from all appearance of evil" (i Thess. 
5 \22) ; "For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye 
suffer for well doing than for evil doing" (i Pet. 
3:17) ; "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or 
as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busybody in other 
men's matters ; yet if any man suffer as a Christian, 
let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on 
this behalf" (1 Pet. 4:15, 16) ; "See that ye walk cir- 
cumspectly, not as fools, but as wise" (Eph. 5:15); 
"Moreover, he must have a good report of them that 
are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare 
of the devil" (1 Tim. 3 \J ; this verse refers to ministers 
of the gospel) ; "For the name of God is blasphemed 
among the Gentiles through you, as it is written" 
(Rom. 2:14; Paul is here rebuking the Jews on ac- 
count of their inconsistent living) ; "Let your light so 
shine before men that they may see your good works, 
and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 

5:16). 

However, let us look at the matter on all sides. 2 The 
unbeliever who finds so much fault with church people 
should remember that, if Christianity were not in itself 
a good thing, false professors never would be called 
hypocrites. To call them so is in reality an acknowledg- 
ment of the high ethical standard required by the Chris- 
tian religion — an involuntary tribute to Christianity. 
Good money is the only kind that is counterfeited. Have 
you ever known wicked infidels to be called hypocrites? 
We think not. Is not that a tacit confession that their 
moral standards are not expected to be very high? 

2. For a fuller treatment of this topic see the author's "A System of 
Christian Ethics," pp. 257-260. 



CHAPTER IV 
HISTORY OF APOLOGETICS 

VI. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF APOLOGETICS 1 

1. The Apologetic Period (70-350 A. D.). 

( 1 ) Apologists. 

The chief defenders of the Christian faith during 
this period were the following: Justin Martyr, Origen, 
Tatian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Lactantius, 
Arnobius. 

(2) Opponents. 

The chief opponents were: Jews, Gnostics, Ebionites, 
and the pagan philosophers, Celus, Lucian, Porphyry, 
Hierocles. 

(3) General character. 

After the apostles, the early Christians met with oppo- 
sition from the Jews, Gnostics, Ebionites, and pagan phi- 
losophers. The Jews opposed Christianity in those days 
as they had previously opposed Christ and the apostles. 
The Gnostics did not wholly reject the Christian religion, 
but mixed with it the human knowledge (gnosis), that is, 
the philosophy and theosophy of the day, thus corrupting 
it with pagan notions. The true apologists opposed all 
the gnostic heresies, because they desired to preserve the 
Christian religion in its original purity and integrity. The 
Ebionites were a Jewish sect which had become partly 

1. Interesting historical summaries of Apologetics are given in Garvie's 
"A Handbook of Christian Apologetics," pp. 3-8, and Lindberg's "Apolo- 
getics," pp. 18-24. 

47 



48 A System of Christian Evidence 

Christian; they accepted Christ, not as the incarnate 
divine-human Redeemer, but only as the Jewish Messiah 
and as the greatest of the prophets. The pagan oppo*- 
nents were the real infidels of the time, because they ac- 
cepted no part of the Christian system ; they were the 
ancient forerunners of all subsequent assailants of Chris- 
tianity. 

(4) The apologists and opponents in conflict. 

Most of the objections to Christianity heralded today 
as "modern" and proclaimed as "discoveries" were ad- 
vanced in this early period, and were answered by compe- 
tent Christian scholars. 2 The Jews were answered by 
Justin Martyr in his classical work entitled "Dialogues 
with Trypho the Jew" (130 A. D.). Tertullian also en- 
tered the field against Judaism in his work, "Adversus 
Judaeos." Cyprian wrote a work with the title, "Testi- 
monia Adversus Judaeos." Justin Martyr also wrote two 
"Apologies" against heathen assailants and addressed 
them to the Emperor Antonius Pius. 

Celsus (about 150 A. D.) was the first pagan who made 
something like a systematic and direct assault on Christi- 
anity. He was a man of wit and learning. Says Dr. 
Philip Schaff : "He anticipates most of the arguments and 
sophisms of the deists and infidels of later times.." 3 He 
was effectively answered by Origen in his well-known 
work, "Contra Celsum." 

Lucian has been called the Voltaire of this period, be- 
cause of his disposition to ridicule Christianity. Por- 
phyry (died 304), a neo-Platonist, was a bitter enemy of 

2. Schaff: "History of the Christian Church," Vol. II, p. 86. 

3. Schaff, tit supra, p. 90. Says Scott, in his "The Apologetic Ele- 
ment in the New Testament," p. 7: "Celsus, towards the end of the second 
century, anticipates almost all the objections which still reappear in the 
most modern criticisms of Christianity." 



General Notes and Principles 49 

Christianity, and wrote fifteen books against it, and 
might be called the father of modern rationalistic Biblical 
criticism. Replies to him were made by Eusebius and 
Appollinaris. Hierocles was not only a writer against 
Christianity, but also a persecutor of Christians, showing 
that infidels will also persecute when the opportunity af- 
fords. 4 

2. The polemical Period (250-730). 

This period overlaps the first somewhat. The second 
period was one of controversy, not with outright infidels, 
but with heretics within the Church. For this reason it 
does not belong specifically to the science of Apologetics, 
but tq Polemics, and therefore we need to dwell upon it 
orrryiong enough to carry out the history consecutively. 
The chief defenders of the faith in this period were 
Alexander, Athanasius, Augustine and Jerome. The 
chief heretics were Arius, Nestorius, Sabellius and Pela- 
gius . The Arian heresy denied the proper deity of 
Christ, and held that He was the first and highest crea- 
ture through whom God created and saved the world. At 
the Council of Nice his doctrine was condemned, Athana- 
sius being his chief opponent. Evangelical Christianity 
has ever since maintained the Athanasian doctrine of 
Christ's person. Pelagius denied man's natural deprav- 
ity, and was opposed by Augustine. 5 

3. The Medieval Period (730-1517). 

I. Defenders of orthodox Christianity. 

Among these were Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux, and 
Thomas Aquinas. Anselm in his great work, "Cur Deus 

4. On this period read F. Watson's engaging little book, "Defenders of 
the Faith." Also Hurst's "History of the Christian Church," Vol. I, pp. 
180-206. 

5. For this period see Hurst, ut supra, pp. 410-455. , 



50 A System of Christian Evidence 

Homo?" ("Why the God-man?"), made a powerful de- 
fense of the divine-human person of Christ and the doc- 
trine of the vicarious atonement. Bernard was the 
special opponent of Aberlard, the medieval heretic. 
Aquinas wrote a learned work, "De Veritate Fidei," 
against against the Jews and Mohammedans. During 
this period Savonarola lived, and his work, "Triumphus 
Crucis," was one of the great Apologies of those times. 

(2) Chief heretic. 

In this period Abelard lived and wrote. He was not an 
infidel, but held unsound views on various doctrines of 
the Bible, especially the atonement. He was the medieval 
representative of much of the liberalism and new the- 
ology of our own day. Much that is called "new theol- 
ogy" today may be found in the disquisitions of Abelard. 6 

4. The Modern Period (1517 to date). 
(1) English Deism. 

This philosophy flourished in the seventeenth and eigh- 
teenth centuries. Its advocates were infidels so far as re- 
gards the Bible, but they were not atheists ; they believed 
that God created the universe, then forsook it, and gave it 
over to the control of the laws and forces with which He 
had edued it ; much as if a man were to make a machine 
that would run itself and then leave it to do so. The 
deists rejected the Bible, many of them with not a little 
scorn and vituperation, and deemed what they called 
"natural religion" to be sufficient for man's guidance. 
Hence they were correctly called infidels. 

Among the protagonists of deism may be mentioned 
Shaftsbury, Thomas Hobbes, Collins, Tindal, Boling- 

6. Lindbcrg, as above, gives a fuller account of this period. 



General Notes and Principles 51 

broke and Sir Francis Newport. Their work culminated 
later in the universal skepticism of Hume and Gibbon. 

The chief apologists of this period (those who made a 
sturdy defense of the Holy Scriptures), were Samuel 
Clark, Lardner, Bishop Home, Joseph Butler, William 
Paley and Archbishop Whateley. Butler was the author 
of that notable book, "The Analogy of Religion," in 
which he showed that the very objections alleged by deists 
against the God of the Bible could be brought with just 
as much force and justice against the God of nature, 
whom they professed to worship. Paley was the author 
of a well-known book, "The Evidences of Christianity;" 
the famous "design" argument for the divine existence 
in its older form is largely to be attributed to him. 

(2) French Encyclopedism. 

The French Encyclopedists, unlike the English Deists, 
became atheistic. The chief of them were D'Alembert, 
Diderot, Voltaire and Rousseau. They were called En- 
cyclopedists because they founded and wrote a great 
French encyclopedia, which was intended to contain all 
the enlightened knowledge of the time. It was planned 
on the basis of Bacon's classification of science. They 
were effectively dealt with by Bishop Home (mentioned 
above) in his great work, "Introduction to the Critical 
Study of the Holy Scriptures," which, old as it is (1818), 
would be well worthy of study by the skeptics of the 
present day. 

There is valid historical evidence that English Deism 
was carried into France by Voltaire (who visited Lon- 
don), and thence by him into Germany in the time of 
Frederick the Great, with whom the French infidel was 



52 A System of Christian Evidence 

associated quite intimately for a while. In France the 
cult was turned into atheism and materialism; in 
Germany it developed into Rationalism. 7 

(3) German Rationalism. 

This tendency, which is more or less prevalent today in 
Germany, England and the United States, has various 
phases, and is divided into numerous schools, some of 
which are very radical, while others are more moderate 
and conservative. It is by no means to be identified with 
such movements as English Deism, French Encycloped- 
ism and current infidelity; that is, it does not reject the 
Bible and Christianity outright, and fight them openly, 
but accepts such parts of the Bible and the Christian sys- 
tem as agree with human reason. Thus it is linked up 
with the more or less destructive criticism of the Bible. 
Its main contention is that reason is the final arbiter, and 
has a right to sit in judgment upon the Bible, accepting 
this and rejecting that, as it chooses. Its principles can 
be traced back to Porphyry, the assailant of Christianity 
in the third century. In modern times its earliest expo- 
nents were Spinoza and Astruc, the former a pantheistic 
philosopher, the latter a French physician. 

In Germany the chief names connected with this move- 
ment are De Wette, Vatke, Eichhorn, Ewald, Graf and 
Wellhausen, who were critics of the old Testament, and 
Baur and Strauss, who applied the same critical methods 
to the New Testament. In Holland Kuenen is the most 
outstanding name ; in France Renan. In Great Britain 
we may mention Bishop Colenso, Samuel Davidson, 
Robertson Smith, George Adam 1 Smith, Cheyne and 
Driver ; in America, Briggs (though in later years he be- 

7. Cf. John Urquhart's "The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy 
Scriptures," pp. 142-144. 



General Notes and Principles 53 

came quite conservative), Henry Preserved Smith, Kent, 
Foster, Bade and Peritz. It must be said that the English 
and American critics named above (with perhaps the ex- 
ception of Bade) aim to be "mediating" critics — that is, 
they try to effect a reconciliation between the radical 
criticism of Graf and Wellhausen and the evangelical 
view. However, their position is obviously illogical ; for 
by tearing the Bible to pieces and finding in it numerous 
supposed scientific, historical and ethical errors, they de- 
stroy confidence in its divine inspiration and authority. 
In every case, when a theologian adopts the so-called crit- 
ical hypothesis, he questions the divine inspiration and 
historical verity of some portions of the Bible. 

(4) Popular infidelity. 

In England and America there was much outspoken in- 
fidelity during the nineteenth century, especially up to 
about the year 1880. It was much given to ridicule, and 
frequently appealed to science, especially the theory of 
evolution, as being in direct opposition to the teachings of 
the Bible. It also had a penchant for finding historical 
and other contradictions in the Bible ; and, strange to say, 
these much-proclaimed discrepancies were the same as 
those brought forward today by the negative Biblical 
critics in support of their hypotheses. At the time of 
which we speak, infidelity was quite well organized in 
places, issued many books, tracts and periodicals, and 
could boast of some conspicuous leaders. However, at 
present infidelity in this country seems to lack organiza- 
tion and leadership. There is no one today in its ranks 
who is well known. 

Judging from Dr. P. M. Muir's excellent book, "Mod- 
ern Substitutes for Christianity," and Dr. George Hen- 



54 A System of Christian Evidence 

slow's "Present-Day Rationalism Critically Examined," 
we are led to conclude that outspoken infidelity is much 
more rife in England than in America at the present 
time. 8 It has some advocates of a good deal of force and 
scholarship, with qualities of leadership. Although frank 
and outspoken, they do not deal so largely in raillery and 
traduction as did the infidels of twenty-five to fifty years 
ago. Most of them are ready to credit Christianity with 
having a more or less salutary power in the world ; only 
they want to find a substitute that will be more effective. 
But they cannot agree as to what the substitute shall be. 
Some say, "morality without religion ;" others, "the relig- 
ion of the universe ;" others, "the religion of humanity ;" 
still others, "theism without Christ. ,, 

Most of the English infidels call themselves Rational- 
ists today, being the successors of the Secularists of the 
"seventies" (that is, the years 1870-1880), in the days 
when Mr. Bradlaugh "was a prominent figure before the 
world and was promulgating his atheistic views." The 
Rationalist Press Association, which is the infidel organi- 
zation of Great Britain, publishes quite a number of peri- 
odicals, brochures and books, and is "professedly based on 
Darwinism." What is known as "materialistic monism" 
is one form of this kind of Rationalism. English Ration- 
alism must be distinguished from German Rationalism ; 
the former is purely infidel; the latter accepts the parts 
of the Bible that agree with reason and rejects the other 
parts. Both kinds of Rationalism, however, make human 
reason the final arbiter in matters of religion. 

8. On the situation in England (at least as it was before the World 
War) consult, in addition to Muir and Henslow, the following works: C. L. 
Drawbridge's "Common Objections to Christianity," "Popular Attacks on 
Christianity" (1914); A. F. Winnington-Ingram's "Popular Objections to 
Christianity" and "Reasons for Faith." 



CHAPTER V 

THE METHODOLOGY OF APOLOGETICS 

VII. METHODOLOGY. 

1. Definition. 

Methodology is the scientific method of classifying, cor- 
relating and developing any science either as a whole or 
in any of its branches. It is not often dealt with in a 
separate way, but its principles, processes and results are 
employed whenever an attempt is made to organize and 
unfold a science. 

2. The Methodology of the present work. 

(i) Note on the Articulated Outline. 

Our plan is clearly shown in the "Articulated Out- 
line" printed in the early pages of this book. There 
it will be seen to be divided into five main parts, with a 
number of major divisions and numerous sub-divisions, 
all of them numbered in an orderly way which we hope 
can be easily mastered. 

(2) The main proposition in Christian Apologetics. 

We believe it is this: The Bible a special divine 
revelation. If this thesis can be proved, it will carry 
with it the proof of all the Christian doctrines; not one 
will be omitted; all will be found to be true in all their 
Biblical fullness ; each will have its proper relative value 
assigned to it. Therefore we shall begin with the Bible, 
and shall try to prove its inspiration and divine origin 

55 



56 A System of Christian Evidence 

by all the available internal and external evidences. True, 
some of these proofs are more convincing than others. 
For example, the strongest proof of the divinity of the 
Bible is Jesus Christ as He is set forth in prophecy and 
history, the most wonderful and unique character of all 
time. But that does not prove that other arguments are 
not also convincing, especially when connected and cor- 
related with the plan of redemption through Jesus Christ 
as depicted in Holy Writ. The Bible is an organism, not 
a collection of disjecta membra; therefore all its parts 
are necessary in order to present fully and effectively 
the divine purpose of creation, providence, redemption 
and destiny. 

(3) Other methods criticized. 

a. Some say that we should make Christ the stand- 
ard or norm or chief thesis, and build on Him ; but how 
do we know who Christ is except through the Bible? 
Far too often people who profess to make Christ, 
and not the Bible, the standard have lax and defective 
views both of the Bible and of Christ. The reason is self- 
evident : they accept the Christ of their own ideas and 
imagination instead of the historic Christ set forth in full 
and living power and beauty in the Bible, including both 
the Old and the New Testaments. 

No ! you cannot divorce Christ and the Bible ; they 
are woven together into one fabric. Christ is not "the 
gospel in the gospel," as some phrase it ; He is the Gospel 
of the gospel. Christ is the proof of the Bible, and the 
Bible is the proof Christ. Christ is the center of the 
Bible, but there can be no center without radii and a 
periphery. Some say Christ is the heart of the Bible : 



General Notes and Principles 57 

true, but a heart must have a living body in which to 
throb and function. 

b. Others desire to make salvation the chief thesis. 
Only those teachings of the Bible which are essential to 
salvation need be accepted as from God, they hold. But 
it must be evident that such a method means the mutila- 
tion of the Bible, allowing every one to accept only what 
he thinks is essential to salvation ; therefore human rea- 
son, not the Bible, becomes man's guide. Such a method 
leads invariably to rationalism. 

c. A favorite proposition with certain liberalists in 
theology is the contention that only the spiritual or religi- 
ous truths of the Bible need be accepted. This again is a 
defective method : it leads to picking and choosing in the 
Bible; for by this plan each one must use his own judg- 
ment as to which are the spiritual teachings and which 
are not. Who is wise enough to decide ? Is not the spir- 
itual teaching everywhere interwoven with historical nar- 
rative, which is everywhere given as if the writers meant 
to describe facts? Yes, the spiritual element cannot be 
torn from the web of the history without destroying the 
fabric. Most of all, how can we know that the spiritual 
teachings are true if the history is false? The sum of it 
is, the spiritual truths of the Bible are found everywhere 
in the Bible, even in the genealogical tables. 

d. To make the Christian consciousness the ultimate 
court of appeal, as some liberalistic theologians, especially 
the Ritschliams, desire to do, is most perilous, leading to 
all kinds of mysticism, fanaticism and hallucination. 
Christian experience is very important ; indeed, it is one 
of the fundamental proofs of the divine verity of the 
Biblical revelation. But how is true Christian experience 



58 A System of Christian Evidence 

begotten? It is begotten through the Word of God, and 
must be tested and guided by the same inspired Word. 
Therefore Christian experience (otherwise the Christian 
consciousness) is not a judge of the Bible, but is judged 
by the Bible, having been begotten by the Holy Spirit 
through the Bible. No one has ever had an evangelical 
conversion except through the truth revealed in the Holy 
Scriptures. "How shall they believe in Him of whom 
they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a 
preacher ? and how shall they preach except they be sent ? 
... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
Word of Christ" (Rom. 10:14-17). 

We repeat : If, according to the method adopted in this 
manual, we can prove the Bible to be God's special 
revelation to men, we shall have established and proven, 
ipso facto, all the doctrines of the Christian system. Let 
us remember always, that all the doctrines of the Bible 
are inter-dependent; all belong to the very structure 
of Christianity. Only by accepting the whole Bible as 
God's Book can we be sure of the great doctrines of 
creation, of moral agency in man, of sin, its origin and 
enormity, of the divine method of preparation for re- 
demption, of redemption through Christ, of the applica- 
tion of redemption by the Holy Spirit through the Word 
and sacraments, and of the final destiny of the human 
race and of the universe. Accept the whole Bible, and 
the whole Christian system, in all its comprehensiveness 
and organic completeness, is perfectly clear. 

(4) The Internal and External Evidences. 
Some modern apologists — usually those who are in- 
clined to liberalism — find fault with this methodolgy. 



General Notes and Principles 59 

While it has long been in vogue, it is not antiquated. No 
valid objection, so far as we have discovered, has been 
brought against it, and no better method has gained cur- 
rency among true, evangelical apologists. Every other 
method leads to more or less obscurantism. At all events, 
we have found no plan that seems to us to be more co- 
herent, inclusive and scientific. 

(5) Another classification. 

Another classification of the material of Apologetics is 
the following: I. Fundamental Apologetics; II. Historical 
Apologetics ; III. Philosophical Apologetics. The author 
has no objection to this scheme, providing it used in an 
evangelical way and spirit ; but he finds that he cannot 
follow it conveniently, nor include in it all the topics he 
desires to treat in a work prepared for his specific pur- 
pose. Therefore we shall proceed to present and unfold 
our main thesis, "The Bible a special divine revela- 
tion/' 



PART II 

THE BIBLE A SPECIAL DIVINE 
REVELATION 



PART II 

THE BIBLE A SPECIAL DIVINE REVELATION 

REVELATION 



CHAPTER VI 
GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTS 

I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

1. The probability of a special divine revelation. 
If there is a personal God, the probability that He 

would reveal Himself in a personal way is very great. 
He has, indeed, revealed Himself more or less clearly in 
nature and reason; but surely He would scarcely think 
a general, impersonal revelation sufficient for His ra- 
tional creatures. This would be particularly true if they 
should fall into sin and danger. Why would He not go 
to their rescue? An earthly parent would. Moreover, 
ought not every one to be glad to believe that God has 
come to man's help in a clear, definite, loving way, just as 
the Bible reveals ? One would think that all persons would 
welcome such a revelation and rejoice in it as good news 
indeed. 

2. The possibility of a special divine revelation. 

A being who could not reveal Himself above the nat- 
ural order of His creation would be a very limited being, 

62 



The Bible a Special Revelation 63 

and therefore could not be God. If this great universe 
is in the hands of a helpless God, we are of all creatures 
most hopeless and miserable. Who can or will believe 
that this cosmos is built on such irrational principles ? 

3, The need of a special divine revelation. 

The status of the heathen world proves this need. They 
have had the light of nature and reason to guide them 
through all the centuries. Has the result been satisfac- 
tory? Is there even an unbeliever who would care to 
exchange our civilization for theirs, or, if he had to make 
a choice, who would prefer their religions to the Chris- 
tian religion? Perhaps God has left them to their own 
ways without special revelation partly to prove to the 
world that such a revelation is necessary. 

So far as regards the philosophers, observe the vague- 
ness and uncertainty of their teachings and speculations ; 
their inability to solve the very problems that are most 
vital to human welfare — the problems of sin, of pardon, 
salvation, immortality, etc. Plato speculated about sin, 
but could come to no definite conclusion ; he did not know 
whether the gods could forgive sin, and even if they 
could, whether they ought. He also expressed the hope 
that some time a special divine revelation would be 
vouchsafed to mankind because of the great uncertainty 
of human reason. Moreover, no two philosophers agree ; 
in fact, most of them undermine one another's specula- 
tions. For example, Democritus and Epicurus were 
materialists, whose philosophies were the direct opposite 
of the conceptions of Plato and Aristotle, who believed 
in God, though their ideas of Him were very defective 
from the Christian viewpoint. Goming down later in his- 



64 A System of Christian Evidence 

tory, Kant was a theist, Spinoza a pantheist, Haeckel an 
atheist. In these three cases the philosophies are mu- 
tually destructive. Among believers in the Bible, there are 
differences of opinion in minor matters, but the differ- 
ences are not fundamental. The status of heathen re- 
ligions and the lack of a consensus among philosophers 
certainly demonstrate the need of a special divulgence 
from God. 

4. Why God made a book. 

Books are the best method of preserving the truth in its 
integrity and transmitting it from generation to genera- 
tion. Memory and tradition are very untrustworthy. 
Therefore, God acted with the greatest wisdom and also 
in the normal way, in giving His revelation to men in book 
form. In no other way, so far as we can see, could He 
have imparted to mankind an infallible norm that would 
be available for everybody, and that would continue in- 
tact throughout the ages, and from which all people 
could procure the same standard of faith and practice. 
Subjective experience would be too obscure and variable 
unless it were directed by a higher and more certain au- 
thority. A universal standard must be an objective one; 
therefore a book. 

5. No substitute for Christianity. 

What other system of religion could men in Christian 
lands accept? Surely not Mohammedanism, or Hindu- 
ism, or Buddhism, or Confucianism, or Taoism. Eclec- 
ticism would be available only for the learned, and even 
they would never agree. Theosophy is too hazy and 
speculative for the vast majority of people ; it is esoteric. 
Positivism, both as a philosophy and a religion, has 



The Bible a Special Revelation 65 

proved a dismal failure. The "Religion of Nature" was 
fully tested in the days of Deism in England, and rapidly 
degenerated into atheism or universal skepticism. So 
with people in Christian lands it is either Chrstianity or 
no religion at all. Which alternate shall we choose? 

6. Rejection of Christianity usually means nesci- 
ence. 

Nescience or nihilism in thought means doubt of ev- 
erything, even the validity of knowledge. What has 
history proven? That the best efforts of the skeptical 
school end in agnosticism — Schopenhauer, V'on Hart- 
mann, Hume, Darwin, Spencer, Huxley — and agnosticism 
finds its last home in pessimism. If we reject the Bible, 
we must admit that we know little or nothing about God, 
creation, man's origin, design and destiny, the cause and 
raison d'etre of sin and suffering, and of a way of salva- 
tion. The door of the future is shut down against us, 
and we beat against it in vain. A well-known non- 
Christian scientist declared not long ago that the origin 
of man is wrapped in complete obscurity. Then, if we 
know nothing of man's origin, we know nothing of his 
purpose and his destiny. Thus without the Bible the 
universe is indeed a "riddle," as the materialist Haeckel 
has called it. All is gloom, uncertainty, nihilism. 

7. Some definitions. 

At this point it will be necessary to give a few defini- 
tions in order to understand the terminology current in 
the science of Christian Apologetics. 

i. Genuineness. 

By this term is meant that a book of the Bible was 
written by the author to whom it has been historically 



66 A System of Christian Evidence 

ascribed, as when we say, "Moses wrote the Pentateuch," 
"Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans." 

2. Authenticity and credibility. 

These terms mean that the Bible or any book of the 
Bible tells the truth and is worthy of belief. 

(3) Integrity. 

This means that the Bible has been kept intact through 
all the centuries, free from essential error and corrup- 
tion; that we have it today in every essential respect 
as it originally came from God. 

4. Biblical proofs probable, not demonstrative. 

This means that they are cogent and convincing, but do 
not force belief, as does a mathematical demonstration. 
Faith is a free, moral act &i the mind, not a mechanical 
one. The real certitude concerning the divine character 
of the Bible comes from a spiritual experience, not from 
mathematical demonstration. The reasoning in a system 
of Christian Evidence is intended to convince the intellect, 
and thus dispose men to go to the true and ultimate 
Source of assurance ; it does not give that assurance itself, 
for that would be usurping the office of the Holy Spirit. 

5. Biblical proofs cumulative. 

This term means that the proofs, presented in logical 
order, grow in cogency, until at length they become con- 
vincing to the reason. Therefore patient investigation is 
necessary ; haste may prove fatal. 

(6) Internal proofs. 

By Internal Proofs are meant those that deal with the 
contents and teaching of the Bible itself. It often occurs 



The Bible a Special Revelation 67 

that the character of a book carries its own evidence of 
its truthfulness and honesty. 

7. External proofs. 

The external proofs of the divine character of the 
Bible are those which are based on evidences outside of 
the Bible, as, for example, history, archeology, salutary 
influence, etc. 

8. The terms orthodox, conservative, etc. 

Those thinkers and scholars who oppose the liberalists 
and contend for the integrity and divine authority of the 
whole Bible and all its doctrines are known as "orthodox," 
"conservative" and "evangelical," and their view is gener- 
ally known as the "traditional" view, because it has come 
down to our times as the historical conception of the 
Christian system. 



CHAPTER VII 

INTERNAL PROOFS OF THE BIBLE 

II. INTERNAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE IN- 
SPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. 

1. Its profound and rational doctrines. 

( I ) The doctrine of God. 

No other book of religion or philosophy sets forth so 
profound, rational and all-sphered a doctrine of God. He 
is personal, and that is a great and satisfying conception ; 
for a personal God can know, feel and will, and men can 
hold communication with Him. The God of the Bible 
is holy, loving and just. Are not these the very attributes 
that God ought to have if He exists ? Men want an ethical 
Being as the Creator and Governor of the universe. He 
cares for His creation, and especially for the rational and 
sentient beings He has made. He is merciful to them, yet 
just in His requirements. Is not that the kind of a God 
whom men can love, and at the same time respect ? Then 
He is all-powerful and all-wise, so that nothing can occur 
ultimately to thwart His decrees and plans. Thus it is 
said by an apostle, ''All things work together for good to 
them that love God, to them that are the called according 
to His purpose." Sometimes He is represented as stern, 
but only toward wicked and impenitent sinners ; never 
toward those who repent and act righteously. This, too, 
is as it should be to hold the respect of ethically minded 

68 



The Bible a Special Revelation 69 

people. And remember that this exalted doctrine of God 
is taught clearly and consistently from the first book of 
the Bible to the last. Compare the Biblical representa- 
tions of the Deity with the hazy speculations of philosophy 
and the crude conceptions of the ethnic religions. 

Now, how could the Biblical writers, living so many 
centuries ago, have imagined and invented so rational a 
conception of God? Considering their times and sur- 
roundings, it is inconceivable that they could have con- 
jured such a God out of their own brains. Divine inspir- 
ation only will account adequately for the facts. 

(2) The doctrine of man. 1 

According to the Bible, man is a personal, moral, free, 
spiritual being, created in the divine image; capable of 
choosing between right and wrong; able not to sin or to 
sin, but if he does sin, redeemable and worth saving. He 
was started in his career amid environments that gave him 
a fair chance — that is, in a garden, not in a slimy mud- 
pool or a noisome jungle ; yet he was created a free moral 
agent, and therefore had to have a test to bring out and 
discipline his moral character. He was no automaton, nor 
is he one now. He can hold personal communion with 
the God who created him, and who redeems him, and 
who will finally confer upon him a destiny of bliss and 
glory. Is not this an exalted conception of man? And 
it is consistently carried out in the Bible from beginning 
to end. Never do the Biblical writers strike a false note 
in anthropology. What a powerful evidence this that the 
Bible is a truthful, divinely inspired Book! How else 

1. A good book on this thesis is James Orr's "God's Image in man and 
its Defacement in the light of Modern Denials." Also Schmid's "Doc- 
trinal Theology," pp. 21 7-23.1. 



70 A System of Christian Evidence 

could its writers have gotten such a profound conception 
of man? 

(3) The doctrine of salvation. 

Again the Bible is consistent throughout in setting 
forth the doctrine of redemption. Man was created 
in the divine image, a free, sentient, rational being; 
thus, when he fell into sin and trouble, the loving God 
who created him in His own image and made him His 
son, immediately inaugurated a plan for saving him ; 
and this plan, carried consistently through the Old 
Testament dispensation, came to fruition in the "full- 
ness of time" in the New Testament, when God Him- 
self, in the person of His eternal Son, came to the 
earth and took upon Him the moral task which man 
was unable to accomplish and the moral burden he 
was unable to bear, and thus redeemed him and 
brought him back into ethical and spiritual accord 
with Himself. That is the wonderful plan of redemp- 
tion taught in the Bible. How wise, loving, gracious 
and inspiring ! Is it not a powerful internal proof 
that the Bible comes from God? Compare this redemp- 
tive method with the schemes of the ethnic religions. 3 

2. The purity of its ethics. 

Everywhere in the Bible clear moral distinctions are 
drawn; there is no blurring of them, as is the case in 
the ethnic religions and in most of the schemes of 
human speculation. In the Bible righteousness is 
everywhere commanded and commended ; sin is always 
condemned. Inner purity, not merely outward, cere- 
monial and conventional morality, is always inculcated. 

Let us be a little more specific. After God had 

2. Cf. Kellogg and Underwood as cited in the Selected Bibliography. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 71 

finished His creation, including man, He pronounced 
everything "very good" (Gen. 1:31); this refers to 
moral as well as physical good, 3 for it, embraces man, 
who was made a moral agent. Thus^he Bible repre- 
sents the universe as a moral economy from the very 
beginning. In the garden of Eden was placed the 
"tree of the knowledge of good evil." Here again is 
a clear conception of moral distinctions. Abel's offer- 
ing was accepted because he was righteous ; Cain's 
was rejected because "sin coucheth at the door" (Gen. 
4:7). The wicked antediluvians were destroyed in the 
flood because "the wickedness of man was great in the 
earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his 
heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5). Noah 
was saved because God found him righteous (Gen. 7:1). 
Nations and peoples were punished and destroyed, 
but always on account of their wickedness ; no nation 
was ever dealt with severely when it walked in the way 
of righteousness. Observe how sternly the Bible rebukes 
those who blur or obliterate moral distinctions : "Woe 
unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put 
darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa. 5 :2o) ! 

Note from the specific teaching of the Bible how 
high its moral standards are. The Ten Command- 
ments have never been excelled for their lofty practical 
morality. Note how fundamental ethically Bible teach- 
ing is : "Righteousness and justice are the founda- 
tion of Thy throne" (Ps. 89:14); "Thy right hand, O 
God, is full of righteousness" (Ps. 48:10) ; "Thy testi- 
monies are righteous forever" (Ps. 119:144). Scores 
of similar passages might be quoted, showing that God 
is inherently righteous. 

3. The Hebrew word for good (tov) is applied in the Bible to God 
Himself; hence it means moral as well as physical excellence. 



72 A System of Christian Evidence 

The Bible always commends upright people : "For 
Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous ; but the 
way of the wicked shall perish" (Ps. 1 : 6) ; "The 
memory of the f ighteous is blessed ; but the name of 
the wicked shall rot" (Prov. 10:7); "He hath showed 
thee, O man, what is good ; and what doth Jehovah 
require of thee but to do justly, and to love kindness, 
and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8). 
"Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of 
your doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; 
learn to do well ; seek justice, relieve the oppressed ; 
judge the fatherless; plead for the widow" (Isa. 1 :i6, 
17). Who can find fault with such ethics? 

That the Bible requires inward purity is evident in 
all its teaching : "Create a clean heart within me, O 
God, and renew a right spirit" (Ps. 51 :io) ; "If I 
regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me" 
(Ps. 66:18); "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they 
shall see God" (Matt. 5 :8) ; "For I say unto you, 
except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of 
the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in nowise enter 
into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). 

Many more citations might be given. This is the 
consistent ethical teaching of the Holy Scriptures 
throughout. Is it not a strong internal proof of the 
veracity of the Bible? How could its writers, unaided 
by the Divine Spirit, gain such lofty ethical concep- 
tions and find the adequate language in which to pre- 
sent them? 4 

4. Cf. Kellogg and Underwood as above; Orr: "The Bible Under Trial," 
pp. 227-253; Pierson; "Many Infallible Proofs/' pp. 145-182; Row; "A 
Manual of Christian Evidences," Part I, pp. 27-120; Bruce: "The Ethics of 
the Old Testament;" Keyser: "A System of Christian Ethics," pp. 84-93; 
"Contending for the Faith," Chap. IV, pp. 63-82; and "The Profound 
Moral Teaching of the Old Testament," in The Lutheran Quarterly, April, 
1922. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 73 

3. The unity and consistency of its teaching. 

Written by about forty different authors, in different 
countries, separated by about 1,500 years, yet the 
Bible throughout teaches the same great doctrines 
regarding God, man, morality, salvation and immor- 
ality. There is not a false or discordant note on any 
of these great basal doctrines. Only cavillers will find 
fault with small, apparent discrepancies, due largely 
to errors in transcription, but affecting not a single 
important historical or doctrinal fact, 5 — we say only 
cavillers will find fault with such insignificant matters 
in view of the remarkable unity of the teaching of 
the Bible on all things that are important and funda- 
mental. 

What is the only adequate explanation of this unity 
of teaching? That it was all God-breathed (2 Tim. 
3:16) ; all inspired by one Mind, the Mind of the Holy 
Spirit (2 Pet. 1:19-21). Is any one able to find an- 
other explanation that is adequate? Here again is a 
cogent argument from the internal evidence. 

To impress this fact still more deeply, we again call 
attention to the fact that the human philosophers nul- 
lify and destroy one another's systems fundamentally ; 
no two agree on many of the most vital points. If 
Plato is right, Democritus is basically wrong ; the like 
is true in a comparison between Kant and Spinoza, 
between Leibnitz and Hegel. 

Note, too, the Old and New Testaments are organ- 
ically connected, the former leading up historically and 
logically to the latter. While there is, as there should 

5. Cf. Schaff's "Introduction to the American Edition of the New Testa- 
ment in the Original Greek" (Westcott and Hort's text), pp. 53-58, with 
most valuable quotations from Dr. Ezra Abbott. 



74 A System of Christian Evidence 

be, progress in teaching and revelation, there is vital 
agreement. "The Old Testament is patent in the New, 
and the New is latent in the Old," says an acute writer, 
Another says : "While there is no collision among the 
writers, neither is there any evidence of collusion. " 6 

4. Its historical character and teaching. 

The Bible professes to recite history from the nar- 
rative of Genesis I to the last chapter of the Acts and 
even throughout the epistles and the Revelation of 
St. John. Never is its religious teaching wrested from 
the stream of human history. The plan of redemption 
is interwoven with the warp and woof of the history 
it records. Christianity is a historical religion. It is 
not a flight of the imagination ; not a mosaic of myths, 
legends, folk-lore and human tradition. This makes it 
a real religion. The numerous historical details give 
the Bible the impression of verisimilitude, and prove 
that it was never meant to be regarded as a collection 
of legends, myths and allegories. Again these facts 
are a strong internal evidence of its veracity and 
divine character, for if the history is true, that carries 
with it the indubitable proof of the doctrines. If the 
Biblical history is true, then the Bible is a true record 
of divine revelation and inspiration. 

5. The soberness of its teaching. 

In the Bible even the most momentous events are 
narrated in a calm, simple, dignified way that is in- 
imitable and bears the marks of its own evidence ; note 
the narratives of the creation, the flood, the crucifixion, 

6. Cf. Pierson: "The Inspired Word," pp. 338-359; Adolph Saphir: 
"The Divine Unity of Scripture" (a notable book); MacArthur; "The 
Old Book and the Old Faith," pp. 193-206; Burrell: "Why I Believe the 
Bible," pp. 26-34. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 75 

the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Observe the 
absence of fanaticism or of Utopian and visionary 
theories and guesses. The teaching of Christ and His 
apostles is marked by soberness throughout. Com- 
pare the pretended revelations and visions of Moham- 
med and Joseph Smith, and also the vagaries of the- 
osophy. Another proof this of the probity and sound 
sense of the Biblical writers. 

6. The all-sidedness of its teaching. 

The more we examine its teaching, the more we see 
that it avoids the one-sidedness of all human specula- 
tions. Every human system over-stresses some things 
and under-stresses others, and thus becomes defective 
and one-sided. To give concrete examples of Biblical 
teaching, it points out the true relation of nature and 
spirit, never confusing them ; of God and the world, 
making both real, yet never mixing the divine essence 
with the essences of the cosmos ; of man's dual nature, 
body and soul, without minimizing the value of either, 
or denying its reality; of practical life and mystical 
communion with God, correlating them in due order 
and ratio ; of the present life and the future, enjoining 
that godliness has the promise of both (i Tim. 4:8). 

Let us briefly compare the all-sidedness of Christian 
teaching with the one-sided teaching of human philos- 
ophies : Idealism denies the reality of matter, and 
teaches that there is only mind; Christianity teaches 
the reality of both matter and mind. Materialism says 
that the only entity is matter, and that mind does not 
exist. How different Christianity, as has just been 
said ! Pantheism holds that God is only immanent, and 
rejects the doctrine of His personality and transcend- 



76 A System of Christian Evidence 

ence; Christianity teaches clearly both His transcend- 
ence and immanence. Deism is the opposite of Pan- 
theism ; Christianity rejects the error and inculcates 
the truth taught by Deism. Secularism one-sidedly 
emphasizes this present earthly life and ignores the 
future ; Fanaticism over-emphasizes the future life and 
neglects the present; Plato, the Gnostics and the 
Manicheans despised the body and thought it was the 
seat of evil ; Buddhism also pours contempt on all 
desire, calling it tanha, and aims to get rid of it en- 
tirely ; Hinduism teaches caste, transmigration and 
final re-absorption of the soul into the unconscious All, 
which is the only God it knows ; Confucianism ignores 
God and the future, and teaches only a system of 
social ethics for this world. Christianity commits none 
of these erratic mistakes, but is a complete, perfectly 
balanced philosophy. The internal evidences of the 
divine origin of the Bible become cumulative. 

7. Its relevancy to human need. 

(i) It satisfies man's natural longing for God (Ps. 
42:1, 2) : "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, 
so panteth my soul after Thee, O God. My soul 
thirsteth for God, for the living God." Let it be 
noticed that the Bible gives assurance of communion, 
not with a dead God, not with an impersonal God like 
that of Pantheism, not with an absentee God like that 
of Deism, not with a finite and more or less helpless 
god like the god of John Stuart Mill, William James 
and H. G. Wells, but with a living, personal, gracious 
and all-powerful God, the Sovereign of the universe. 

(2) It complements the conscious weakness of human 
nature by its doctrine of regeneration. In this divine act 



The Bible a Special Revelation 77 

the Holy Spirit implants a new principle of spiritual 
life in men's minds, giving them new feelings, new 
strength against evil, new views of God and of Christ 
and the Bible — in short, making them "new creatures 
in Christ Jesus." Note some pertinent passages: 
"Verily I say unto thee, Except any one be born from 
above, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3), 
implying that, if one does receive such an experience, 
he will be assured of the principles of the divine king- 
dom. This, it may be said, has been the experience of 
millions of twice-born men. Note again : "I can do all 
things in Him that strengtheneth me" (Phil. 4:13): 
"And He said unto me, my grace is sufficient for thee : 
for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 
12:9). The doctrine of regeneration is distinctive 
of Christianity; it is unknown in other religions and 
in human philosophy. "For whosoever is begotten of 
God overcometh the world ; and this is the victory that 
hath overcome the world, even our faith. And who 
is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth 
that Jesus is the Son of God" (1 John 5 4, 5) ? 

(3) The desire for positive assurance of truth is met 
in the teaching of the Bible. Let us note some pas- 
sages that are germain : "Jesus therefore answered 
them and said, My teaching is not mine, but His that 
sent Me. If any man is willing to do His will, he 
shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or 
whether I speak of Myself" (John 7:17) ; "If ye abide 
in my word, then ye are truly my disciples ; and ye 
shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you 
free" (John 8:32) ; "Jesus said unto him, I am the way, 
and the truth and the life : no man cometh unto the 



78 A System of Christian Evidence 

Father but by Me" (John 14:6) ; "The Spirit Himself 
beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children 
of God" (Rom. 8:16) ; "He that believeth on the Son of 
God hath the witness in himself" (1 John 5 :io). These 
and similar passages are the crux of the whole matter, 
for the Holy Spirit in conversion or regeneration gives 
the believer full assurance of truth, pardon and salva- 
tion. If all men would receive this impingement on 
their consciousness, there would be no need of further 
argument. 

(4) The Bible affords comfort in every kind of trial: 
in sickness, misfortune, earthly loss, contrition, be- 
reavement and death (John 14:1-3; Rom. 8:28; 2 Cor. 
4:17; Heb. 12:11). Note these: "And we know that 
all things work together for good to them that love 
God" (Rom. 8:28) ; "For I reckon that the sufferings 
of this present time are not worthy to be compared 
with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward" 
(Rom. 8:18); "For our light affliction, which is for 
the moment, worketh for us more and more exceed- 
ingly an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. 4:17) ; "All 
chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous 
but grievous; yet afterward it yieldeth the peaceable 
fruit of righteousness to them that are exercised there- 
by" (Heb. 12:11); "O death, where is thy sting? O 
grave, where is thy victory" (1 Cor. 15:55, 56). Even 
in the Old Testament there are many consoling pas- 
sages : "Like as a father pitieth his children, so 
Jehovah pitieth them that fear Him: for He knoweth 
our frame; He remembereth that we are dust" (Ps. 
103:13, 14) ; "Before I was afflicted I went astray; but 



The Bible a Special Revelation 79 

now I observe thy Word;" "It is good for me that 
I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes" 
(Ps. 119:67, 71). 

Surely a book that gives so much consolation to 
people in weakness and trouble must be a good book; 
but if it is a good book, and at the same time claims 
to be from God, its testimony to itself must be true; 
it must be from God. 

(5) It gives promise of the solution, either in time or 
in eternity, of all human problems. In this respect it is 
indeed the complement of human need. Those prob- 
lems that perplex us now will be solved hereafter. 
"Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou 
knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter" 
(John 13 :j) ; "For now we see in a glass, darkly, but 
then face to face : now I know in part ; but then shall 
I know fully, even as I was fully known" (1 Cor. 13: 
12). This surely is a great and comforting assurance. 
What system of merely human thought offers such a 
hope? 

(6) The universal desire, more or less definite and 
intense, to be right with God, without violation of the 
law of justice, is satisfied through the mediation of 
Christ. In nearly all religions the offering of sacrifices 
to propitiate their gods is prevalent. Of course, it is 
greatly perverted, as is everything else indeed ; neverthe- 
less, the principle is deeply ingrained in human nature. 
Men who are sinful feel that they cannot themselves 
merit favor from the supernatural powers, and so they 
must offer something as a substitution. 

In the Christian system this great principle is met and 
upheld by the atonement or expiation that Christ, the 



80 A System of Christian Evidence 

Son of God, wrought for mankind. The Divine One, 
who is the basis of the holy law and its source, took the 
penalty of its violation on Himself, and thus satisfied the 
eternal demands of justice and upheld the moral govern- 
ment of the universe; for God could not, by a mere fiat 
and act of power, sweep to one side His justice, and for- 
give violators of the law out of hand. No human gov- 
ernment could stand on such lax principles of justice. A 
judge must punish the culprit, even though he may pity 
him and may desire to remit his punishment. How could 
a government stand if society were not protected and 
justice upheld? It was on this account that Christ came 
and died for the sins of the world. He came out of love, 
and the Father sent Him out of love for the world, and 
out of love He became the sinner's Substitute before the 
holy and eternal law. Now we hold that this inherent 
conviction that justice must be maintained at any cost, 
even while mercy saves the repentant sinner, finds all its 
needs met in the expiation wrought by the Son of God. 

Some relevant passages of Scripture are the following : 
"Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1) ; "But 
all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself 
through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of recon- 
ciliation ; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the 
world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their tress- 
passes" (2 Cor. 5 :i8, 19) ; Christ became "a merciful and 
faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17); 
"And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous ; and He is the propi- 
tiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for 



The Bible a Special Revelation 81 

the whole world" (i John 2:1, 2) ; "Herein is love, not 
that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His 
Son to be the propitation for our sins" (1 John 4:io). 7 

(7) Christianity meets the desire of the soul for inner 
purity. Whatever may be the depth of the expression, 
sincere and morally earnest people rejoice in the Biblical 
assurance that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us 
from all sin." "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be 
clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Ps. 
51 17). There is no system of human philosophy or soci- 
ology that even proposes to do this for sinful men ; no 
ethnic religion has the power to accomplish it. 

(8) Christianity cancels the fear of death and satis- 
fies the hope of and the desire for immortality. It teaches 
us that "it is not all of life to live, nor all of death to die ;" 
that "death does not end all;" but that "Christ has 
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" 
(2 Tim. 1 :io). There is much assurance of a future life 
in the New Testament, which is regarded by Christians 
as the full revelation of God. For example (John 
14:1-3) : "Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God 
and believe in Me ; in My Father's house are many man- 
sions ; if it were not so, I would told you : I go to pre- 
pare a place for you ; and if I go and prepare a place 
for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, 
that where I am there ye may be also." Paul is no less 
positive (2 Cor. 5 :i) : "For we know that, if the earthly 
house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building 

7. On the doctrine of the atonement cf. Schmid. ut supra, pp. 343-370; 
Hodge: '"The Atonement ;" Stalker: "The Atonement;" Mabie: "The 
Divine Reason of the Cross;" Mozley: "The Doctrine of the Atonement;" 
Weidner: "Soteriology:*' Remensnyder: "The Atonement and Modern 
Thought;" Keyser: "The Rational Test," pp. 1 19-138, and "A System 
of Christian Ethics," in ioco. 



82 A System of Christian Evidence 

of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens." Read also i Cor. 15:53, 54, 55; Rev. 2:10; 
Rev. 20-22. 

The character of the future life delineated in the New 
Testament is worthy of consideration. There is to be 
the most intimate fellowship with God; heaven is char- 
acterized by great joy, perfect purity, the entire absence 
of night, sin and sorrow. In the book of Revelation 
much imagery is employed to help us to visualize the 
glory and beauty of the place, and in none of the figures 
of speech is there the remotest suggestion of impurity. 
It is always represented as a state of self-conscious exist- 
ence. Each person preserves his identity. You will be 
you and I will be /. It is evident, too, that the saints will 
know one another in heaven; for where they see face 
to face and know as they have been known, surely they 
will have the power of mutual recognition. It would 
hardly be a perfect place if people knew less there than 
they do here on earth. 

Compare the Biblical portrayals of the future with 
those of Mohammedanism, with its promises of sensuous 
and sensual pleasure ; also with the doctrine of re-absorp- 
tion in Hinduism, in which individual consciousness and 
identity are swallowed up by absorption into the All; 
also with Buddhism with its doctrine of Nirvana, leading 
to final extinction of being; while Confucianism deals 
only with this little earthly span of life. 8 

(9) Apposite to human psychology. 

The Biblical system of truth correlates perfectly with 
man's psychical constitution. There is not a chord in his 

8. Cf. Kellogg, as above, pp. 90-115, (a striking comparison of the 
eschatology of Christianity with ethnic religion); Tisdall: "Comparative 
Religion," pp. 102-115; Keyscr: "The Biblical Doctrine of Immortality," 
in The Lutheran Quarterly, July, 1921. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 83 

mental makeup to which it does not make a true and 
effective appeal when the conditions are normal. It 
engages the intellect, for in its contents there are many 
things that challenge thought and investigation. In es- 
sentials it is plain like nature herself ; but some of its doc- 
trines require the profoundest thought. Bible teaching also 
strikes the whole gamut of human emotion ; it appeals to 
love, fear, hope, righteous anger, the desire for rest and 
comfort, and the highest ethical feelings and aspirations. 
Nor does it fail to engage and challenge that royal en- 
duement, the will, putting it to the utmost test, re-en- 
forcing it in times of weakness, and inciting it to right 
choices and activities. This teaching, finally, meets the 
spritual needs of the mind; the desire to know God, to 
rest upon the Ultimate Reality, and to have immortal 
fellowship with Him and other good and happy personal 
spirits. 

While Christian truth works thus constructively on 
th human mind, it also corrects the errors of human think- 
ing: the proud and arrogant temper of the intellect; the 
turgid and vindictive feelings; the sloth of the will and 
the fatal misconceptions of those who teach the deter- 
ministic view of the will, thus nullifying the sense of 
human responsibility. In brief, the chief purpose of the 
gospel of Jesus Christ is to restore the human mind to 
its normal condition and enable it to perform its normal 
functioning offices. In the terms of Christian theology, 
this means that the gospel seeks to restore the divine 
image in man, that image which has been lost through sin. 

To conclude this important section of our study, we 
would ask : Is it probable that a merely human book, and 
especially one that makes false claims of having come 



84 A System of Christian Evidence 

from God, would prove so preeminently germain to all 
the deepest needs of the human soul? The best explana- 
tion, and the most reasonable and the only adequate one, 
is that this wonderful Book is the gift of God. 9 

9. On this whole thesis of relevancy see an excellent discussion in 
George P. Fisher: "The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief," pp. 
89-98. 



CHAPTER VIII 
INTERNAL PROOFS CONTINUED 

II. INTERNAL PROOFS (continuted). 

8. The wonderful Person portrayed by the Bible — 
Jesus Christ 1 

(i) The crucial nature of this thesis. 
Among all the internal proofs of the divine inspiration 
of the Bible the picture it gives of the person and work 
of Christ is the most important. The crucial question is, 
Could merely human wisdom have conceived and de- 
picted such a character? Christ is both the mystery 
and the stumbling-stone of the skeptics, just as He was 
of the ancient Jews and Greeks. How to account for 
Christ by merely natural and human means- — that is the 
enigma. Why should any one have wanted to invent 
Him and thrust Him upon the world as its Lord and Re- 
deemer? Plow could deceivers have conceived a character 
of such purity and f aultlessness ? Plow could fanatics 
have fabricated one who was always sober, sane and bal- 
anced in his traits, speech and demeanor? If He was 
what the Bible claims for Him, all is clear; every phe- 
nomenon is adequately explained. Otherwise He remains 
the insoluble mystery for science, philosophy and skep- 
ticism. 

i. For pertinent literature on the person of Christ, consult the Selected 
Bibliography. 

85 



86 A System of Christian Evidence 

(2) His marvelous claims. 

No man ever made such exalted claims as did Christ; 
no other man ever made Himself equal with God; yet 
He was most humble and unaffected, and associated for 
the most part with people of lowly estate. Let us note 
more particularly some of His claims : the only begotten 
Son of God (Jn. 3:16, 18; 10:36); the same as the 
Father (Jn. 14:9); the Messiah (Jn. 4:25, 26; 5:39, 
40); the Redeemer (Matt. 20:28); the Saviour (Lk. 
19:9, 10) ; the Sent of God (Jn. 3 :iy, 34) ; "the way, the 
truth, and the life" ( Jn. 14 :6) ; also the forgiver of sins ; 
the resurrection and the life; the final judge of all na- 
tions, tribes and people, the wise and the unwise, the 
quick and the dead; the one who has all authority and 
power both in heaven and on earth ; the one who can 
always be present with His disciples and wherever two 
or three are gathered together in His name ; the one who 
shall come at last upon the throne of His glory with all 
the holy angels with Him. 

These certainly are the most amazing claims that any 
man ever made for himself. If they are false, how could 
Christ have lived so pure and unselfish a life? And why 
did He die a cruel death on the cross for the sake of these 
very claims? That surely would have been contrary to 
the nature of things. The most reasonable conclusion is 
that Jesus was what He claimed to be. How could the 
disciples have fabricated a character making such claims, 
and then carry their conception to success? 

(3) His ethical purity. 

He knew no sin; He never confessed Himself to be a 
sinner; He challenged His accusers to convict Him of 



The Bible a Special Revelation 87 

sin ; He never repented of sin, though He bade all others 
repent (Lk. 13:3, 5) ; He lived uprightly in His outward 
deportment, so that Pilate could find no fault in Him 
(Lk. 23:4, 14; Jn. 18:38; 19:4, 6) ; the Roman centurion 
and those who stood with him at the cross, were con- 
strained to say, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. 
27:54). Since He lived so noble and upright a life, and 
withal was so poised in character, it is hard to believe 
that He was either an impostor or a fanatic. It is easier 
to believe that He was what He claimed to be — the Son 
of God sent to ransom the world from sin. Neither 
could impostors or dupes have invented a character and 
a life so pure. 

(4) His spiritual insight. 

No one ever lived in closer communion with God. He 
says that He always did the will of the Father. He spoke 
to Him in the most intimate way; He taught that only 
truly spiritual worship of God is acceptable to Him (Jn. 
4:23, 24). Note what He said about praying to "youi 
Father in secret" (Matt. 6:6). It is not credible that 
one who lived so close to God would have been anything 
but honest and true. Nor could impostors or fanatics 
have fabricated so spiritual a character as that of Christ. 

(5) His calmness, courage and patience. 
Enthusiasts and fanatics never possess these qualities ; 

sooner or later (usually the former) they proved them- 
selves to be unbalanced. But Christ never lost His self- 
possession, His equipoise or His courage. He never 
courted danger or persecution, yet never fled from them. 
There are no marks of an illy balanced nature in His 
teaching and conduct. Surely if He was not what He 



88 A System of Christian Evidence 

claimed to be, He would have betrayed some signs of 
weakness and confusion. If He was an invention, how 
great must have been the literary and ethical geniuses 
who invented Him! And what motives could have 
prompted them? 

(6) Tributes of skeptics. 

It is remarkable how many tributes have been paid to 
the excellence of Christ's character by men who were 
skeptical of the system of religion He gave to the world. 
Let us note some of them, and draw from them the legiti- 
mate conclusions. Renan : "Jesus is in every respect 
unique, and there is nothing to be compared with him." 
J. S. Mill : "Christ is still left, a unique figure, not more 
unlike all His precursors than all His followers, even 
those who had the benefit of His personal teaching. But 
who among His disciples or among their proselytes was 
capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of 
imagining the life and character revealed in the gospels? 
Certainly not the fisherman of Galilee ; certainly not Paul, 
whose character and idiosyncrasies were of a totally dif- 
ferent sort ; still less the early Christian writers." One 
cannot help wondering, after reading such acknowledg- 
ments, how Renan and Mill could refrain from becoming 
true, evangelical believers. There is something strange 
about the inconsistencies of human nature and human 
logic. 

Strauss (author of a rationalistic life of Christ and 
founder of the so-called mythical school) : "Christ is the 
highest object we can possibly imagine with respect to 
religion, the Being without whose presence in the mind 
perfect piety is impossible." Similar tributes might be 



The Bible a Special Revelation 89 

quoted almost ad infinitum from Goethe, Matthew Ar- 
nold, Lecky, Theodore Parker, and even Diderot and 
Rousseau. Indeed, the last-named skeptic is the author 
of the well-known sayings : "Peruse the works of our 
philosophers, with all their pomp and diction, how mean, 
how contemptible they are, compared with the Scrip- 
tures ! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and 
so sublime, should be merely the work of man? Is it 
possible that the sacred Personage whose history it con- 
tains should Himself be a mere man? Do we find that 
He assumed the tone of an enthusiast or an ambitious 
sectary? What sweetness, what purity in his manner! 
What an affecting gracefulness in His instructions ! What 
sublimity in His maxims ! What profound wisdom in His 
discourses ! . . . Where is the man, where the phil- 
osopher, who could so live and so die, without weakness 
and without ostentation? . . . Yes, if the life and 
death of Socrates are those of a sage, the life and death 
of Jesus Christ are those of a God." Robert G. Ingersoll, 
much given to scoffing at Christianity and often pretend- 
ing to expose "the mistakes of Moses," never attempted 
to point out the mistakes of Christ ; on the contrary, he 
once said, "If Christ were living today, I should delight 
to give Him homage." 2 

If these plaudits are true, how could Christ have been 
anything but what He claimed to be ? How could so great 
and noble a person have set up a false and foolish claim ? 

(7) Tributes of great men who were believers. 
Napoleon: "I know men; and I tell you that Jesus 

2. Dr. Schaff in his classical work, "The Person of Christ," made an 
extensive collection of tributes from skeptics, citing authors, titles and 
pages. Other testimonies may be found in Mullins' "Why is Christianity 
True?" pp. 128-135. Johnson: "Christianity's Challenge." pp. 73-76. 



90 A System of Christian Evidence 

Christ is not a man." Citations could be given from 
Herschell, Newton, Faraday, Guyot, Hugh Miller, Agas- 
siz, Dana, Washington, Lincoln, Lord Kelvin and 
many others. 

Surely a person who can win tributes from such men 
must be unique. Could a book, written centuries ago, 
much of it in a crude age, yet containing all the sublime 
qualities named by these great men, and especially setting 
forth so resplendent a character as Christ — could such 
a book be a mere human concoction Or a tissue of false- 
hood? As some one has said, "It would take a Christ to 
invent a Christ." We conclude, therefore, from the pic- 
ture of Christ drawn on its pages, that the Bible must be 
more than a human book ; it must be divinely inspired. 3 

9. The apostles and evangelists as witnesses. 

( i ) They were sincere. 

Of this there can be no doubt. No earthly advantage 
could accrue to them by their acceptance and advocacy of 
Christ and His teaching. They could win no fame, no 
wealth, no ease. They were willing not only to suffer, 
but also to die for their faith ; and when they died, they 
died triumphantly, often rejoicing in the privilege of 
dying for their Lord. Men are never willing to make 
sacrifices for what they know to be falsehoods, nor for 
principles which they do not regard as of supreme im- 
portance. A noted infidel of a past generation scoffed at 
the martyrs of the Church, saying, "It is better to lie 
than to die." This proved how lightly he held his own 
principles. 

The apostles could not have been imposters. It is 
inconceivable that imposters could have invented 

3. Dr. Schaff's book also contains tributes by believers. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 91 

such narratives and doctrines as the gospels contain 
nor such a pure and noble character as that of Jesus 
Christ. Imagine their getting together and concoct- 
ing an imposture, and then giving to the world the 
purest character (Christ) and the purest ethics the 
world has ever known ! Do mendacious people do 
such things? That would be like a pure stream 
flowing from a foul source. 

Again, if they knew that their story was false — 
for, example, regarding the resurrection of Jesus — 
how could they have ever hoped to achieve success in 
the circumstances that then obtained in Jerusalem? 
However, on the assumption that Christ did arise, that 
He was the divine Son of God, that He did endue 
His disciples with power from on high, all is explained • 
an adequate cause has been assigned for the rise and 
spread of Christianity. Is it not rational and scien- 
tific to accept the only adequate explanation? 

(2) They were sober men, not credulous and fanat- 
ical. 

Some skeptics and rationalists contend that the 
apostles were credulous, ready to believe almost any- 
thing. The New Testament records — the only con- 
temporaneous records we have of their conduct — do 
not so represent them. On the contrary, they "were 
slow of heart to believe." Christ rebuked them on 
this account (Lk. 24:25). When he foretold His resur- 
rection, they neither understood nor believed what He 
said (Mk. 9:32). After His death they fell into de- 
spondency, and were not expecting His re-appearance. 
Peter said, "I go a-fishing" (to his former employ- 



92 A System of Christian Evidence 

ment), and the others declared that they would go 
with him. On the morning of the third day the women 
went to the tomb to embalm His dead body, showing- 
how little they were looking for His resurrection. 
When He appeared to them, they were greatly sur- 
prised and affrighted. After His resurrection the 
disciples were loath to believe any reports of the 
event even from their own number, regarding them as 
"idle talk" (Mk. 16:12-14; Lk. 24:11). They even 
doubted the evidence of their own eyesight (Lk. 
24:36-45). To a greater or less extent they were all 
"doubting Thomases" (Jn. 20:24-29). 

Thus it is an error to suppose that these early dis- 
ciples were gullible and fanatical ; indeed, they were 
most skeptical. They had to be convinced by the most 
indubitable evidence. Such evidence must have been 
furnished to them, or these daunted and disheartened 
men and women would never have preached Christ 
before a gainsaying and persecuting world. The 
skepticism of the apostles is a most cogent indirect 
apologetic for the truth of Christianity. 

(3) They were competent witnesses. 

By this we mean not only that they were sensible 
and sincere, but also that they had first-hand knowl- 
edge of the events and doctrines which they pro- 
claimed. The twelve apostles were directly associated 
with Christ throughout His earthly ministry, and were 
all witnesses of His resurrection (Acts 1 :2i-26) ; in 
fact, such first-hand knowledge was a sine qua non of 
apostleship. 

Listen to the testimony of Peter : "For we did not 
follow cunningly devised fables when we made known 



The Bible a Special Revelation 93 

to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His majesty: for 
He received from God the Father honor and glory, 
when there was borne to Him a voice from the Majes- 
tic Glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well 
pleased ; and this voice we ourselves heard borne out 
of heaven, when we were with Him in the holy 
mount" (2 Pet. 1:16-18). The apostle John's testi- 
mony is no less decisive : "That which was from the 
beginning, that which we have heard, that which we 
have seen with our eyes, that which we have beheld, 
and our hands handled concerning the Word of Life 
. . . declare we unto you also, that ye also may 
have fellowship with us : yea, and our fellowship is 
with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ ; and 
these things we write that your joy may be made full" 
(1 Jn. 1:1-4). 

Thus the apostles and those associated with them 
saw Christ's miracles, heard His discourses, met and 

touched Him after His resurrection, and bore witness 
unafraid everywhere they went to these events. How 
could all of them — for there were at least one hundred 
and twenty — have been deluded into thinking they 
had seen Christ's miracles and had met Him after He 
rose from the dead? And how could their delusion 
have made them willing to suffer martyrdom rather 
than deny Christ as their Lord and Saviour? Who 
will dare to impeach the testimony of such men? 

(4) They zvere ivithoiti zvorldly power and prestige. 

With no fame, no wealth, no great learning, no 
army at their command, with nothing, indeed, but 
moral suasion and spiritual power, how could they 



94 A System of Christian Evidence 

have foisted upon the unbelieving and critical Jews, 
Greeks and Romans such a scheme as the Christian 
system? Try to imagine a band of persons like them 
seeking to make the people of Jerusalem believe that 
one had risen from the dead — one, too, who had been 
crucified as a felon and had been buried just outside 
the city walls ! How could such a story gain credence 
in such improbable circumstances? How could there 
have been any hope of success? Yet the fact is, they 
did succeed, winning converts by the thousand imme- 
diately, while only three centuries later their religion 
became the chief religion of the Roman empire. Re- 
member, too, that the Christ whom they proclaimed 
as the world's Redeemer was without worldly power 
and influence ; that He was poor in purse and without 
academic degrees ; that He was put to death as a 
malefactor in the most ignominious way. Yet His 
principles succeeded, and today millions on millions 
of people believe in Christ and worship and trust Him 
as God. What is the only adequate explanation? 

- Now, the argument stands thus : If the disciples of 
Christ wrote the truth about Him in the Gospels and 
Epistles, they must have been divinely inspired; be- 
cause, first, they could not have portrayed His char- 
acter accurately without divine guidance ; second, 
Christ promised them the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit, and if He was truly what He claimed to be, He 
must have fulfilled His promise. Therefore the won- 
derful person of Christ proves the divine inspiration 
of the writers of the New Testament. 



CHAPTER IX 

CONTINUATION OF THE INTERNAL PROOFS 

II. INTERNAL PROOFS (continued). 

9. The apostles and evangelists as witnesses (con- 
tinued). 

(5) Their witness to the resurrection of Christ. 

a. There is a sense in which the whole system of 
Christianity depends on the fact of the resurrection 
of Christ. It is true, there are other facts and miracles 
that occupy a strategic position; but we select the 
resurrection because it has so frequently been made 
the center of attack by both infidels and liberalists in 
theology. Note the force of the argument: If men 
can be convinced that the miracle of the resurrection 
is a fact, they will need to have no further doubt 
about the other miracles recorded in the Bible. It 
might almost be said that the resurrection is the 
crowning miracle. Again, if Christ rose from the dead, 
He is certainly proved to be the Messiah. God, the 
Father, thus placed His seal upon Him as His Son. 
Thus we see the strategic importance of this thesis. 
It holds a key position. 

Various theories of the resurrection of Christ have 
been proposed by infidels and semi-infidels, and we 
must examine them frankly. 

b. There is the swoon theory. This theory is that 
Christ did not really die, but simply swooned away; 

95 



96 A System of Christian Evidence 

then was laid in the sepulcher, and afterwards came 
forth and showed Himself to His disciples. 

But this is an impossible view. It is not likely that 
Christ, who was so weak that He could not carry His 
cross, could have survived the ordeal of the crucifixion. 
When the soldiers came to break His legs, as was the 
cruel custom, they found him dead. When they 
pierced His side with their spear, blood and water 
flowed out, proving that the heart had been broken 
and serum formed. Surely Pilate and the soldiers 
would have made sure that He was dead. So would 
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who buried Him. 
How could one in His weakened condition have 
pushed the heavy stone away from the mouth of the 
tomb? How could He have evaded the strong guard 
of Roman soldiers, to whom neglect of duty would 
have meant death? In His weak and wan condition, 
in need of nursing and medical attention, He never 
could have made His disciples believe that He was 
the Lord of glory and power for whom they would 
be willing to risk and sacrifice all. The swoon theory 
would also have made the apostles base deceivers, and 
Christ a party to their imposture. Besides, what 
became of Christ? Did He remain in hiding while 
His followers toiled and suffered for Him? No; this 
theory is not worthy of half the space we have given 
it. 

c. Next is the vision theory. According to this theory, 
Christ really appeared after His death to His dis- 
ciples, but only in spiritual visions, which they, being 
impressible, mistook for bodily appearances. 1 

1. Advocated by Strauss, Renan and others; fully answered by Orr: 
"The Resurrection of Jesus." 



The Bible a Special Revelation 97 

Strange as it may seem, this view has been seriously 
advanced by great scholars. How is it to be an- 
swered? It would still involve a miracle, and nothing- 
is gained by substituting one miracle for another. It 
would have been a piece of deception on Christ's part, 
for then He appeared to His disciples only in a spir- 
itual vision, and yet conveyed to their minds the im- 
pression that He appeared bodily. The disciples were 
not impressible, but exceedingly skeptical, and hence 
were not in a mood to see visions and mistake them 
for fleshly realities. Neither will this theory account 
for the empty tomb. If it is true, what became of the 
body of our Lord? 

d. We note the legend theory. The advocates of 
this view contend that legends arose in Palestine some 
years after Christ's career was ended, and the story 
of the resurrection was one of these legends. 2 

Our reply is, the time was too short for legends to 
arise and gain such power over thousands of people 
as to lead them to sacrifice property, ease, comfort, 
position, and even life itself to promulgate them. 
Legends do not arise in that way, nor do they have 
such power over conviction and life. How could a 
legend have produced Pentecost? How could it have 
converted the intimidated Peter and his fellow-dis- 
ciples into fearless preachers and advocates? How 
could it have won the scholarly Paul? No; this 
theory is not adequate. 

e. The falsehood theory. This means that the dis- 
ciples knew that their Master had not arisen, but 
proclaimed it as a fact nevertheless. We have already 

2. Rcnan was the noted advocate of this theory in his "Vie de Jesus." 
Abundantly dealt with by Orr, ut supra. 



98 A System of Christian Evidence 

shown this view to be impossible. There was no 
sufficient motive for such baseness on the part of 
Christ's followers. Moreover, they lived pure lives 
and taught pure doctrine and ethics. Pure streams 
do not flow from corrupt fountains. Think of it, too : 
if Christ's body was still in the sepulcher, why did 
not the enemies produce it and confound the apostles 
with the damaging evidence? Of all theories, the 
weakest and worst in that Christianity, the religion of 
purity and true ethics, grew out of duplicity. 

f. The theory that Christ's body was stolen by His 
enemies has been held by some objectors. In reply Dr. 
Amos R. Wells says : "They (the enemies) would 
have brought forward the body as soon as the Chris- 
tians began to talk about the resurrection, and thus 
would have convicted the Christians of falsehood ; 
and we should have a record of their doing so. In- 
deed, such a proof would have nipped Christianity in 
the bud." 3 

g. Christ's body was stolen by His disciples, say 
other objectors. This was also the claim of the Roman 
guard, suborned by the Jewish Sanhedrim. How do 
we answer? Dr. Wells replies thus: "By pointing 
to the Roman guard, for whom it would have been 
death to sleep at their post. And especially by point- 
ing to the noble character of the disciples. Would 
John or Peter or James have connived at such a 
fraud?"* And we may add, would they have been 
willing to die for what they knew to be a falsehood? 

h. Thus far impossible theories. Now let us attend 
so some positive evidences for the resurrection of our 

3. In "Why we Believe the Bible," p. 113. 

4. Ut supra, p. 113. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 99 

Lord. After the resurrection there were ten or eleven 
Christophanies (appearances of Christ) : "to women 
and men, to solitary persons, as Mary Magdelene. 
Peter and James, to the ten disciples (in the upper 
room), to the eleven, to the seven by the lake, to more 
than five hundred. They were in many places and in 
many circumstances : near the tomb, in the upper 
room, on the highway, by the Sea of Galilee, on a 
mountain in Galilee, on the Mount of Olives. It is 
impossible to explain away so many appearances" 
(Wells). 5 It is not probable that five hundred persons 
would have seen Christ alive at the same time if He 
had not appeared in reality before them. 

i. It is a significant fact that the Christophanies ceased 
after a certain time. Says Dr. Wells in his pointed way : 
"If it had all been a myth and superstition, it would 
have grown instead of diminishing with the lapse of 
time; but the appearances of the risen Saviour, numer- 
ous at first, diminish rapidly during the following 
days, and after forty days they cease altogether with 
the ascension. Myths would increase in number and 
complexity with the growth of imagination and the 
passage of time." 6 In this cessation of the Christo- 
phanies we see illustrated again the principle of the 
divine economy of miracles. 

j. The remarkable change wrought in the disciples 
by the resurrection is a strong proof. Before that 
event they were weak and fearful, slow to understand 
and believe; afterward they were strong in faith and 
undaunted in the presence of authorities and crowds. 
Before the resurrection they lacked spiritual power; 

5. Ut supra, p. 119. 

6. Ut supra, pp. 119- 120., 



100 A System of Christian Evidence 

afterward they were endued with power from on high, 
so that their courageous testimony on the day of 
Pentecost brought three thousand sinners to their 
knees. Nor was their access of courage and potency 
an evanescent enduement; it lasted with the disciples 
until death claimed them. Paul came last among the 
apostles, but the sight of the risen Lord and the gift 
of the Holy Spirit completely changed his life and 
character. It is not likely that either falsehood or 
hallucination would transfigure men in that way. "It 
is impossible to account for their changed attitude 
unless Christ really rose from the dead" (Wells). 7 

k. The resurrection was necessary to give the disci- 
ples the last assurance that Christ was the Messiah 
and the Son of God. Without it they would always 
have been in doubt. The result proves that God saw 
to it that they had ample proof to make them positive, 
fearless and potent. So we, too, knowing the resur- 
rection to be a historical fact, need have no doubt ot 
Christ's Messiahship. 

1. Even the variant details in the several evangelical 
narratives of the resurrection add to the proof of its 
reality. There are no contradictions, though not every 
minutia can be explained; but the differences of view- 
point prove that there was no collusion among the 
writers; rather that each of them wrote an indepen- 
dent account of the events as he observed and under- 
stood them. The details in each case give the narra- 
tives an atmosphere of versimilitude, so that it is 
natural to feel that real occurrences are being recited. 
The detail about the linen cloths in which Christ was 
buried lying about in an orderly way, instead of being 

7. Ut suprra, p. 120. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 101 

thrown about in disorder, affords added proof that the 
body could not have been hurriedly stolen either by 
His friends or His enemies. Indeed, had not a real 
miraculous resurrection taken place, the clothes would 
not have been left in the grave at all, but would have 
been worn by their possessor. 

m. The resurrection of Christ, proven to be a his- 
torical occurrence, furnishes also proof for the immortal- 
ity of the soul. This is certainly a logical inference. 
There cannot be a body without a soul ; so if Christ's 
body was alive and ascended to heaven, His soul must 
also share His immortality. Indeed, it is preposterous 
to think of an immortal body without an immortal 
soul. How could the disciples of Christ have been 
sure of conscious immortality without the resurrection 
of their Lord and Master? "He hath begotten us 
again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead" (i Pet. 1:3). Of course, the 
resurrection also carries proof of the immortality of 
the glorified body. Thus man is to be "all immortal." 

n. One more matter should be elucidated : With 
zvhat kind of a body did Jesus rise? Was it a body of real 
flesh and blood, or only a phantasmal body? The 
records all indicate that His body was a real body, yet 
that it had undergone some kind of a change, just as 
today we know that material substance may often be 
changed in form, though the substance remains un- 
changed. 

Let us note that it was a real body : He showed His 
hands and feet, and bade His disciples to handle Him, 
and make sure it was Himself and not a spirit (Lk. 
24:39, 40); He ate food in the upper room (Lk. 



102 A System of Christian Evidence 

24 41-43) ; Thomas was bidden to place his hands in 
the wounds of his Lord (Jn. 20 127, 28) ; He kindled a 
fire on the shore of the lake, broiled some fish thereon, 
and distributed food to the hungry disciples (Jn, 
21:9-13). All these facts prove that Christ's risen 
body was the real body that had been buried. 

Yet in some ways it was different: After the resur- 
rection Christ's appearances differed in their mode 
from those of His ante-resurrection life. He appeared 
suddenly, then disappeared just as suddenly. He 
came to His disciples in the upper room when the 
doors were closed. No doubt His body had under- 
gone partial glorification. He still remained in the 
realm of time and space in order to give His disciples 
sufficient reassurance and proof by His appearances, 
and also to complete His instruction on the vital prin- 
ciples of the kingdom and His disciples' relation to it. 
This status of his body lasted forty days; then He 
ascended to the right hand of God where He was fully 
glory with the Father's own glory which they had 
had together before the world was (Jn. 17:5). Of 
course, there is miracle in these Christophanies, but 
they are in beautiful accord with the best conclusions 
of physical science today respecting the universal 
ether of space. 8 

Thus we have proved the resurrection of Christ to 
have been a fact ; then the system of Christianity and 
the inspiration of the Bible are established. 9 

8. The author cannot take the space here to explain his own special 
views regarding the post-resurrection appearances of Christ in connection 
with the scientific theory of the universal ether, often called "The Ether 
of Space." This view is explained somewhat at length in his work, "In the 
Redeemer's Footsteps," Vol. I, pp. 186-187. 

9. Books to consult on the resurrrection of Christ are listed in the 
Selected Bibliography. 



CHAPTER X 
CONTINUATION OF THE INTERNAL PROOFS 
II. INTERNAL PROOFS (Continued). 

10. The conversion of Paul. 

(i) Its importance. 

The remarkable change effected in Paul's life by his 
conversion affords one of the strongest internal proofs 
that Biblical teaching and history are true, especially 
in their testimony to Christ. How to account for 
Paul's conversion has been a conundrum for skeptics 
and liberalists second only to the problem of Christ- 
ology. If Paul's account of his own conversion is 
true, it establishes the truth of Christ and Christianity. 
Thus we see its crucial place in Christian Apologetics. 
It is another keystone in the arch. 1 

(2) Naturally speaking, his conversion was very un- 
likely. 

This point is well developed by Dr. Wells: "He 
(Paul) was a man of exalted station and of fine educa- 
tion, who would naturally despise the humble and 
unlearned followers of Jesus. He had been trained in 
the strict sect of the Pharisees, who were Christ's bitter 
enemies. The seeing and hearing of Christ might have 

1. Literature on Paul's conversion: Bruce: "Apologetics," pp. 413-429; 
Fisher: "The Supernatural Origin of Christianity;" Wells: "Why We 
Believe the Bible," pp. 134-140; Knowling: "The Testimony of Paul to 
Christ;" Wilkinson: "St. Paul and the Revolt Against Him;" Faulkner: 
"Modernism and the Christian Faith," pp. 167-183; Machen: "The Origin 
of Paul's Religion;" Robertson: "Paul the Interpreter of Christ." 

103 



104 A System of Christian Evidence 

removed his prejudices, but he had never seen or heard 
Him. He became the most bigoted and powerful 
opponent of Christianity, persecuting, as he said, 'this 
Way unto death, binding and delivering into prisons 
both men and women.' No man on earth would seem 
more unlikely than Paul to be converted to Christian- 
ity, still less to become its most ardent and successful 
advocate." 2 On account of man's natural pride of 
opinion, it must have been hard for Paul to change 
so utterly and acknowledge his error before all his 
acquaintances. 

(3) The reality of Paul's conversion. 

It was not merely a formal change ; not one that 
might have been brought about by fright, or con- 
siderations of policy, or even by logical processes. It 
was a real, inner, ethical and spiritual transformation 
such as can be effected only in the new birth by the 
Holy Spirit. To this he himself bore explicit witness : 
"If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature ; 
old things are passed away, behold, all things have 
become new. But all things are of God, who reconciled 
us to Himself through Christ, and gave unto us the 
ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:17, 18). If his 
transformation was not a real spiritual change wrought 
by the Holy Spirit, then we must accuse him either 
of deliberate falsehood and hypocrisy or of foolish 
delusion. In view of all the facts, neither supposition 
is reasonable. He was too noble and self-sacrificing to 
be an imposter, too sane and well-poised to be the 
victim of hallucination. 

Note the ethical and spiritual features of his exper- 

2. "Why We Believe the Bible," p. 134. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 105 

ience. Once a bitter persecutor, he is now a humble, 
patient, forgiving Christian acknowledging himself a 
debtor to all men. Had his change been merely an 
outward, mechanical one instead of ethical, he would 
have still retained his malignant, persecuting temper, 
and would have persecuted the Jews, as he had pre- 
viously persecuted the Christians. Once he was nar- 
row and bigoted ; now he is broad and generous and 
cosmopolitan. He had to give up much for Christ 
and suffer much persecution, but he did it all without 
complaint. Something very internal had occurred to 
Paul. It was a spiritual transformation. 

(4) Paul's doctrines. 

The doctrines he believed and taught so ardently 
prove that his change was wrought in a supernatural 
way, and that proves the reality of Christ. He be- 
lieved in the deity of Christ ; he taught that Christ 
fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and was the 
archetype of the Old Testament types and symbols ; 
that Christ made vicarious atonement for the sins of 
the world ; that He rose from the dead, citing ten or 
eleven of His appearances, and adding his own vision 
of Christ on the way to Damascus ; that the Old 
Testament Scriptures throughout are God-breathed 
(2 Tim. 3:16) ; that believers have the inner witness 
of the Spirit (Rom. 8:15-17) : that Christ "hath brought 
life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 
Tim. 1:10). Surely this teaching connotes a real 
inner change and experience. To what else can we 
impute them but to the power of the risen and glori- 
fied Christ? 

Thus Paul's conversion and subsequent life of 



106 A System of Christian Evidence 

purity and devotion prove the truth of Christianity. 
And if Christianity is true, the Bible, from which 
Christianity is derived, must be God's Book. 

11. The frankness of the Biblical writers. 

It is significant that the writers of the Bible are 
perfectly frank in portraying their characters. There 
is no attempt to idealize them, to place them on the 
pedestal of perfection, or to gloss their faults. This 
is an evidence of the pellucid honesty of the Biblical 
writers ; they were not mere advocates ; they were not 
trying to make out a case ; they were simply and 
naively bent on telling the truth, whether it was favor- 
able or damaging to their cause. Where in all fic- 
ticious literature will you find a parallel? 3 

Suppose we cite examples. Noah was a righteous 
man, chosen of God to preserve the human race. You 
would think he would have been depicted in all bright 
colors ; and he would have been had he been a hero of 
imagination ; but, behold, he became intoxicated, and 
was made a humiliating spectacle. Abraham was 
chosen of God to be the father of His people; but 
twice he played the coward and told falsehoods. Jacob 
exhibited two most culpable faults, those of self-seek- 
ing and duplicity. A fiction writer would have made 
Moses a flawless hero, but the honest Biblical scribes 
tell us that he lost his temper morethan once, and so 
offended God that he was never allowed to realize 
his highest hopes — to enter the promised land. Samuel 
was impatient and chided God. And what shall be 
said of David? Would a writer of fiction ever have 
permitted his hero to fall into the awful sins of mur- 

3. On this topic cf. Mac Arthur: "The Old Book and the Old Faith," pp. 
226, 236 ; Wells, ttt supra, p. 36. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 107 

der and adultery, after he had been lifted so high? 
But the writer was intent only on telling the facts. 
The great prophet of the Lord, Elijah, lost his courage, 
ran from danger, and sat forlorn under a juniper tree, 
bemoaning his lot. Verisimilitude, downright honesty 
everywhere; no glossing, no false coloring to win a 
point ! 

No less striking is the pellucid honesty of the New 
Testament writers. They tell a very unflattering story 
about themselves, the very opposite of myth-mongers 
and legend makers. All the twelve apostles doubted, 
were afraid, could not understand, forsook Christ in 
His extremity, and had to be rebuked by Him again 
and again ; one of them betrayed Him ; another, and 
the chief one, denied Him with oaths. What a col- 
lege of apostles, indeed, to represent Christ to the 
world and to carry His message to the ends of the 
earth ! Would a myth-maker or a fiction-writer have 
set forth such damaging facts? And would a conscious 
fabricator have done so? He might have known they 
would be used afterward against the imposture he was 
trying to foist upon the world. 

This utter disingenuousness of the Biblical writers 
proves their integrity. Being honest, they told the 
truth ; and if they told the truth, the divine inspiration 
and authority of the Bible are proven. 

12. The fulfillment of prophecy. 

This is a profound and complicated subject, and we 
cannot give it the space it deserves. We can give the 
evidence only in broad lines. The argument is this : 
No one but God can know the future. "Who knoweth 
what a day may bring forth?" If therefore predictions 



108 A System of Christian Evidence 

have been literally fulfilled, God only could have in- 
spired them. Then the only question is, Have any 
of the prophecies — or a sufficient number of them to 
establish a fact — been fulfilled? 

Only a few instances can be cited. "Therefore the 
Lord Himself will give you a sign : Behold, a Virgin 
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name 
Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14; comp. Matt. 1:23). In the 
account in Matthew this prophecy is expressly applied 
to Christ, in whom it had a wonderful fulfillment. This 
is especially significant when the word "Immanuel" is 
interpreted ; it means "God with us." If this prophecy 
does not refer to Christ, it has no meaning ; if it does, 
its meaning is perfectly clear. 

Note again (Isa. 9:6) : "For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given ; and the government shall be upon 
His shoulders : and His name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of 
Peace." 

Apply all these terms to Christ, and see how marvel- 
lously they fit His person and character. It is significant 
that this Child should be called the Mighty God; for in 
Matthew's gospel He is called "Immanuel, God with us." 
In the first chapter of the gospel according to John, He is 
called the Logos : "In the beginning was the Logos, and 
the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." With 
the doctrine of Christ in the New Testament also agrees 
the name, "Everlasting Father," which in Hebrew is, 
"the Father of Eternity." Compare : "In the beginning 
was the Logos" (Jn. 1:1); "Father, glorify thou me with 
thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the 
world was." (Jn. 17:5) ; "I am the Alpha and the Omega, 



The Bible a Special Revelation 109 

the First and the Last," applied both to God and to 
Christ (Rev. 1:8,17,18; 21:6; 22:13). So the other 
designations apply to the Christ of the New Testament, 
and to Him only. Yet note that it says, "Unto us a child 
is given," etc. Is it not remarkable that divine names 
should be applied to a child? This seems to prove that 
God inspired the prophet to write as he did, knowing 
that He would send His Son into the world to become 
incarnate in human form — to become a babe and develop 
into a man. 

One of the most instructive prophecies of the Old 
Testament is that of Isaiah 53, which has been termed "a 
prophetic biography of Christ." An unbeliever once grew 
interested in this chapter, and after studying it for a time, 
was so impressed with its fulfillment in Christ that he 
renounced his infidelity and became a devout Christian. 
Note only a few points : "He was despised and rejected 
of men" — fulfilled in Christ ; "a man of sorrows and ac- 
quainted with grief" — fulfilled in Christ; "He was 
wounded for our transgressions ; He was bruised for our 
iniquities," etc. — fulfilled in Christ; "and they made His 
grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His 
death" — fulfilled in Christ ; "although he had done no 
violence, neither was deceit in His mouth" — all fulfilled in 
Christ. 

The parallels between the Old Testament prophecies 
are too numerous and specific to be mere coincidences. If 
they were fulfilled in Christ, they glow with meaning; if 
not, they are mere vaporing and jargon. Christ Himself 
taught that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled 
in Him ! "And beginning from Moses and all the 
prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the 



110 A System of Christian Evidence 

things concerning Himself" (Lk. 24:27; also 32); "Ye 
search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye 
have eternal life; and they are they which bear witness of 
Me" (Jn. 5:39). 

Our Lord Himself made frequent predictions. Note 
the many things He foretold that were fulfilled: that 
Peter would deny Him and Judas betray Him; that He 
would be killed by crucifixion (Matt. 26:2); that He 
would rise again on the third day ; that within the life-time 
of some of His hearers, the temple would be destroyed 
and Jerusalem would fall ; that His kingdom and gospel 
should spread through all the earth. Thus prophecy is a 
strong evidence of the divine origin of Christianity and 
the Bible.* 

13. The Biblical claim to inspiration. 

( 1 ) Definition of divine inspiration. 

By this term we mean that the writers of the Bible 
wrote as they were moved and guided by the Holy 
Spirit. 

Thus they reproduced God's thoughts in the language 
in which He desired to have them set forth. At this 
place we will not discuss the several theories of inspira- 
tion that have been advocated. 5 This subject would lead 
us too far afield, and may better be treated in a work on 

4. Cf. Wells, as above, pp. 44-52; Turton: "The Truth of Christianity," 
pp. 99, 100, 186-200, 374-395, 434; Lyall: "Preparation of Prophecy;" 
Fisher: "The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief," pp. 447-460; 
Pierson: "Many Infallible Proofs." pp. 29-78; Bruce: "Apologetics," 176- 
208, 226-261, 293; Stump: "Bible Teachings," pp. 20-23. 

5. Vide an admirable summary of the several theories of inspiration in 
Wells, ut supra, pp. 64-67; also cf. Cave: "The Inspiration of the Old 
Testament Inductively Considered;" Schmid: "Doctrinal Theology," pp. 
38-64; J. A. O. Stub: "Verbal Inspiration" (small, but very incisive); 
J. C. Ryle (Bishop): "Is All Scripture Inspired?" (very pointed); 
Gaussen: "Theopneustia : The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scripture" 
(old, but acutely reasoned); Stuart: "Divine Inspiration Versus the Docu- 
mentary Theory of the Higher Criticism." 



The Bible a Special Revelation i 111 

(2) What the Bible claims for itself. 

Dogmatic Theology. For Apologetics the main point is 
that the Bible is fully inspired. We call this plenary in- 
spiration, in opposition to the liberalists, who hold that 
only some parts of the Bible are inspired, or that it is 
"inspired in spots." The latter view makes the Bible an 
uncertain book. It makes human reason, after all, the 
final arbiter, and that is not essentially different from 
the old Deism of England and the old Rationalism and 
Ritschlianism of Germany. We have already shown how 
unreliable mere human reason is as a guide in spiritual 
problems. The Bible, we believe, is a safer guide. 

It is true, the Bible does not say everywhere in so many 
words, "God said this." That would have been so repeti- 
tious as to become wearisome. But the Bible does give 
the general impression that it speaks the truth everywhere, 
and that wherever it was necessary, God gave to man 
special revelation, instruction and guidance. Some men 
say that the first chapter of Genesis does not claim to 
have been inspired of God or dictated by Him. True 
enough, but that chapter conveys the impression that it is 
narrating facts, and leaves it to men's common sense to 
infer that no one but God could have revealed these 
primeval facts to man, seeing that no human beings were 
living until the close of the sixth day. As soon as God 
created man (second chapter), He revealed Himself to 
him, talked with him, and gave him directions for his con- 
duct, and from then on the history is consecutive and 
without a break. Would not all this prove that the God 
of the Bible meant to give the impression that the history 
is true? Therefore, He must have seen to it that some 
one some time wrote that history and got it correct. 



112 A System of Christian Evidence 

Considering the Bible in the large, it does claim in very 
many places to come directly from God. Some one has 
made the computation that such expressions as "And God 
said," "God commanded," "The word of the Lord came 
unto me," "God appeared unto Moses," etc., occur in the 
Bible fully two thousand times. Certainly the Bible is a 
theistic book through and through ; it might be said to be 
rife with the supernatural element. Are all these claims 
true or untrue? They must be one or the other. They 
cannot be both ; nor can they be half-true and half-untrue. 
When the Bible says, "And God spake all these words, 
saying" (Ex.20 :i), they must be either true or untrue. 
The critics who deny the existence of Moses, or make him 
a "vaguely majestic character," 6 are doing nothing less 
than putting the writer of Exodus into the category of 
falsifiers. Their contention is primarily, therefore, with 
the Bible itself and its authors, not with orthodox theo- 
logians and apologists. 

The New Testament many, many times bears witness 
to the Old. Christ never criticised the Old Testament, 
but treated it as if it were a true revelation from God. In 
many ways He deepened and spiritualized its meaning, 
but at no time did He reject any part of it. Indeed, He 
expressly declared that He came not to destroy the law 
and the prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5 :iy). When 
Satan tempted Him, He quoted the Old Testament, say- 
ing, "It is written," as if that were the end of debate. 
He criticized the Rabbinical glosses on the Old Testament, 
and accused the Pharisees of perverting its doctrines, 
putting in their stead human tradition (Matt. 15:6; Mk. 

6. See Robert Mackintosh: "Christianity and Sin," p. 12. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 113 

7:13). Some one has aptly said: " 'The Scriptures can- 
not be broken' was not a parenthesis with our Lord." 
Those who reject the Old Testament, or tear it to shreds 
with their critical apparatus, undermine the authority and 
divinity of Christ. 7 

Let us examine two classical passages from apostolic 
writing. The first one is 2 Tim. 3:16: "Every Scripture 
is inspired of God, and is profitable for teaching, for 
reproof," etc. 8 The Greek word translated "inspired of 
God" is theopneustos, which means literally God- 
breathed; that is, every Scripture comes from God as its 
source. To what writing (Scripture) did Paul refer? To 
the Old Testament, as the context shows. To prove it, 
read the two preceding verses : "But abide thou in the 
things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, 
knowing of whom thou hast learned them ; and that from 
a babe thou hast known the Sacred Scriptures, which are 
able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which 
is in Christ Jesus." Did Paul have the same Old Testa- 
ment canon that we have today? He did. Therefore 
Paul claimed divine inspiration (or a divine source, which 
is the same thing) for "every Scripture" of the Old 
Testament. That certainly is high authority. If the Old 
Testament is not all God-breathed, Paul was sadly in 
error. 

7. On this v important thesis cf. Noesgen: "The New Testament and the 
Pentateuch;" Franklin Johnson: "The Quotations of the New Testament 
from the Old;" Burrell: "The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Scrip- 
tures;" Rouse "Old Testament Criticism in New Testament Light;" Keyser: 
"Contending for the Faith," pp. 170-201. 

8. The author believes he has here given the correct translation. It is 
placed in the margin of the American Revised Version. In the original 
there is no copulative verb, as so often occurrs in the Greek; therefore it 
must be supplied. The original is, Pasa graphe theopneustos; translated, 
this would be, "Every Scripture is God-breathed. " Then the kai which 
follows theopneustos can naturally be translated "a«nd," connecting with 
what ensues. 



114 A System of Christian Evidence 

It may be objected that the same claim is not made for 
the New Testament writings ; but that position cannot be 
upheld. Everywhere the New Testament professes to 
give a fuller and clearer revelation of God than is 
given in the Old Testament, which was preparatory to the 
revelation in and through Christ (Heb. 1:1,2; Jn. 1:17, 
18). Therefore, if the Old Testament was plenarily in- 
spired, how much more the New ! Moreover, Paul pro- 
fessed to receive his apostleship and gospel, not from 
men, but from God (Rom. 1:5; Gal. miff). He also 
averred that he had the Spirit of Christ. Moreover, 
Christ promised His apostles the Holy Spirit, who would 
"guide them into all truth" (Jn. 16:13). So Paul 
claimed divine inspiration for himself ; therefore we 
have the testimony of an inspired apostle to the inspira- 
tion of the Old Testament. 

The other crucial passage is 2 Pet. 1 : 12-21. All of it 
should be read carefully, for it agrees with Paul, though 
the order of the argument is reversed. Peter begins with 
the apostolic testimony, and then goes back to the Old 
Testament, thus connecting the two and putting them on 
an equality. He claims that he and his fellow-apostles 
did not "follow cunningly devised fables/' but "were eye- 
witnesses" of Christ's majesty. Referring to their ex- 
perience on the mount of transfiguration, he says, "And 
this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven." 
Therefore he claims divine revelation for the gospel he 
preached. Then he goes on to say (we give the literal 
translation from the Greek) : "So we have the word of 
prophecy confirmed." That is, the revelation which 
Christ made to His apostles confirmed the prophecies of 



The Bible a Special Revelation 115 

the Old Testament. Then he says (v. 20) : "No prophecy 
of Scripture is of its own unloosing;" that is, it did not 
come of its own accord or from a human origin; "for" 
— note the logic of the conjunction — "for no prophecy 
ever came by the will of man ; but, being borne along by 
the Holy Spirit, the holy men of God spake." We trans- 
late as literally as we can to bring out the forceful way 
in which the apostle stated his thesis. 

Peter's logic is clear. He places the testimony of the 
apostles on a par with that of the Old Testament prophets, 
saying that the latter is confirmed (made sure) by the 
former. Then he avers that the prophets spake, not 
from themselves, but only as they were moved by the 
Holy Spirit. This argument spells the inspiration of 
the whole Bible. 

Let us now draw the legitimate conclusion. The writ- 
ers of the Bible often claim that their writings are di- 
vinely inspired, and this claim is made in various ways 
fully two thousand times. If this claim is not true, the 
Bible is the greatest literary and religious fraud in the 
world, and some forty different writers were all and 
severally parties to it. We hesitate to use such language, 
but it cannot be avoided in pursuing the syllogism to its 
merciless conclusion. But the Bible is the best Book in 
the world ; it teaches the purest ethics, the deepest spir- 
ituality; it has saved millions of people from sin, doubt 
and despair; it has comforted the sorrowing, and put 
hope into the hearts of the despondent; it has turned up- 
ward the currents of civilization ; it has cast upon a dying 
world the radiance of a blissful future. But how can 
such a good Book be a bad book? We reply joyfully, it 



116 A System of Christian Evidence 

is not a bad book ; it is a good Book; therefore its claim 
to come from God is true. And that is cause for devout 
gratitude to God, who has not left us in this world to 
grope our way in darkness. 

(3) The question of the Biblical canon. 

Here again we must condense. The problem of the 
canon is vitally connected with the doctrine of divine in- 
spiration. If "all Scripture is inspired of God;" if God 
took the trouble to give the world such a revelation, He 
surely would have preserved it in its integrity. Is not that 
a logical, yes, a necessary, conclusion ? For God to have 
inspired men to write books for a specific and paramount 
purpose — that is, to teach mankind the way of salvation — 
and then permit those writings to be lost, would be most 
absurd. Therefore we have reason to believe that He 
guided His Old Testament Church in forming the canon 
of the Old Testament, and His New testament Church in 
gathering together the books fitted for the New Testa- 
ment canon ; and thus we have the whole Bible. It has 
proved its fitness by the salutary influence it has all along 
exerted and is exerting today. 

Why did God close the Biblical canon just when He 
did? This question can be answered consistently with 
the answer to the previous question. When God had 
given a sufficiently clear and full revelation for man's 
guidance and salvation, He wisely closed the inspired 
canon. More would have been superfluous ; less would 
have been inadequate. There is a divinely wise econ- 
omy of inspiration, just as there is of' miracle, in' the 
Bible. 

If God had continued to make special revelations, 



The Bible a Special Revelation 117 

and had included them in a canon, by this time there 
would have been a ponderous, unwieldy library that 
no one could master and handle. As it is, the Bible is 
not too small to be satisfactory and not too large to be 
studied and handled conveniently, and carried with us 
to God's house or on a journey. All these facts reveal 
a celestial wisdom' in the forming and closing of the 
canon. A finished creation, a finished incarnation, a 
finished atonement, a finished canon — that seems to be 
God's plan. Yet each has in it such latent potencies and 
possibilities that there is room for endless development, 
research and discoverery — for infinite progress. 9 

9. On the canon of Scripture note the following: In Orr's "The Inter- 
national Standard Bible Encyclopedia," article by George L. Robinson on 
"The Canon of the Old Testament," and one by J. S. Riggs on "The Canon 
of the New Testament." See also Westcott: "The Bible in the Christian 
Church" for the Old Testament and "The Canon of the New Testament." 



CHAPTER XI 

EXTERNAL PROOFS OF 
DIVINE INSPIRATION 

III. EXTERNAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE 
INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. 

1. The proof from experience. 1 

(i) Note a distinction. 

In so far as Christian experience is produced by the 
Holy Spirit in the mind of the converted person, it is 
internal, that is, for the person himself; but so far as 
the Bible itself is concerned, it is external. To put 
it briefly, this proof is internal for the Christian, but 
external for the Bible. 

(2) Definition of Christian experience. 

By Christian experience is meant the inner witness 
vouchsafed to the penitent and inquiring sinner by the 
Holy Spirit, through the teaching of the Scriptures, 
assuring him of truth, pardon and salvation through 
Jesus Christ. In its initial stage it comes in what 
is known as conversion, regeneration or the new birth. 

1. Perhaps the classical work on this special department of Christian 
Apologetics is Stearns* "The Evidence of Christian Experience." Mullins 
devotes a large section of his work, "Why is Christianity True?" to this 
subject; so pages 140-164 of Lindberg's "Apologetics." 

118 



The Bible a Special Revelation 119 

Some persons experience a sudden and revolutionary 
conversion, such as came to Paul : with others the 
experience comes more gradually, but no less truly 
and clearly. This inner experience becomes richer and 
deeper as the Christian grows in grace and in the 
knowledge of Christ. 

(3) The direct assurances of the Bible, 

The Bible teaches unmistakably that God will give 
the obedient and believing soul positive assurance of 
truth and salvation. Many apposite texts might be 
cited : "Ask, and it shall be given unto you ; seek, and 
ye shall find," etc. (Matt. 7:7-11) ; "If any man is willing 
to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether 
it is of God, or whether I speak from myself" (Jn. 7: 
17). What is God's will? Part of it is that one 
should ask God for light; that one should repent and 
believe — that is, be in a humble and receptive frame 
of mind. The pursuit of this pathway inevitably leads 
to assurance. It is like experimenting in the chemical 
laboratory : if the proper conditions are complied with, 
the result is certain; if they are not, nature will not 
yield her secrets. The would-be scientist cannot get 
H 2 in just any way, but must perform his experi- 
ment according to nature's laws. Does he complain 
about the necessary conditions? No more should the 
earnest soul complain of the conditions in God's 
spiritual laboratory. 

Another sedes doctrinae (seat of doctrine) is John 
8:31, 32: "Jesus said unto those Jews that believed on 
Him, If ye abide in My Word, then are ye truly My 
disciples ; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth 



120 A System of Christian Evidence 

shall make you free." This proves that, if the assur- 
ance does not come clearly all at once — and that may 
sometimes occur — it will grow clearer with persever- 
ance; and that is a fact of common experience with 
Christians. John 8 136 is also revelant : "If therefore 
the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" 
— another statement that has been tested successfully 
by hundreds of thousands of earnest persons. Let the 
inquirer carefully ponder the following assuring pas- 
sages: Jn. 14:16-21 (how rich in certification!) ; Rom. 
5:1, 2; 8:16, 17; 15:13; 1 Cor. 2:9, 10; Heb. 11 :i ; 
James 1:5-8; 1 John 5:10-12. These verses will bear 
the test of experiment, but it must be honestly made. 
The Bible is a serious book, tremendously in earnest. 

(4) The witness of the Holy Spirit. 

Reference has already been made to this locus. "The 
Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit that we 
are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16). Of course, the 
inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is the crux of the 
whole matter. That He does give such inner certitude 
has been attested by millions of Christian people whose 
word cannot be impeached. The only difficulty is to 
get unbelievers to put themselves in the necessary 
attitude of mind to receive this witness. It remains 
to be said in all earnestness that this inner testimony, 
impinging directly on the believer's consciousness, is 
more convincing than outward miracles would be ; it is 
indeed, the final proof for the individual who receives 
it. It is at this point that God has left the gateway 
open for each soul to come into direct contact with 
Him. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 121 

(5) Contents of religious assurance. 

This is an important locus. Not all God's truth is 
revealed in this direct way to regenerated persons, 
not even all religious and Biblical truth, but only those 
truths that are most fundamental, namely, that Christ 
is the Savior, that sin is pardoned, that salvation and 
immortality are sure, that the Bible is God's Word. 
These great truths are vouchsafed to the converted 
person in the beginning; the other spiritual truths and 
assurances follow through growth in grace and knowl- 
edge. God grants enough initially to give the soul 
assurance of the great foundation truths, but not so 
much as to encourage men to be slothful and carnally 
secure. Is not His way the right way? 

Sometimes the fact just stated is taken advantage 
of by liberalists. They hold that only a few of the 
fundamental truths are necessary, as, for example, 
believing that Christ is the Saviour, and that, therefore, 
many other things in the Bible need not be accepted. 
We regard this position as full of peril. 

a. It almost always occurs that the person who 
takes the above attitude toward the Bible sooner or 
later becomes lax even in his views of Christ, or at 
least has hazy and indeterminate conceptions of His 
person and work, especially the atonement He made 
for sin. Let people once become rationalistic toward 
the Bible, and they will be likely to think sooner or 
later that they can accept or reject just what they 
please. 

b. If the view that certain parts of the Bible are 
not divinely inspired is made popular, most people will 
not know what to believe, and hence will lose con- 



122 A System of Christian Evidence 

fidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible throughout. 2 
c. It is true that the converted person does not 
experience directly many facts and doctrines taught in 
the Bible. For example, he does not experience the 
history of creation as recited in the first chapter of 
Genesis, for he was not there when the events recited 
took place. So he does not have a direct experience 
of man's creation (Gen. 2:7), or of his life in Eden 
(Gen. 2:15-25), or of his fall into sin (Gen. 3:1-19), and 
so on. Yet the following mode of reasoning is cer- 
tainly sound. 

The Christian's first experience of pardon, salvation 
and the new birth came through the Bible; had it not 
been for the Bible, he would not even have known any- 
thing of Christ and the way of salvation ; now, since 
his great and precious experience came to him through 
certain specific teachings of the Bible, he cannot 
believe that God would put such transforming and 
divine truths into a book that is filled in other places 
with all kinds of crude scientific, historical and moral 
errors. That surely would have been mixing truth and 
error in a most confusing way. Thus it seems reason- 
able to the converted person that, if God gave an 
infallible revelation of His plan of redemption, He 

2. Cf. Bishop J. C. Ryle: "Is All Scripture Inspired?" Worthy of note 
is Bishop Ryle s stalwart position (p. 41): "The view which I maintain is 
that every book, and chapter, and verse, and syllable of the Bible was given 
by inspiration of God. I hold that not only the substance of the Bible, but 
its language, not only the ideas of the Bible, but its words, not only certain 
parts of the Bible, but every chapter of the book — that all and each are of 
divine authority." On pages 42 he quotes the following from Wordsworth 
on "Inspiration": "We affirm that the Bible is the Word of God, and that 
it is not marred by human infirmities. We do not imagine, with some, that 
the Bible is like a threshing floor, on which wheat and chaff lie mingled 
together, and that it is left for the reader to winnow and sift the wheat 
from the chaff by the fan and sieve of his own mind." It should be re- 
membered that these are the deliberate utterances of ripe and profound 
scholars, who have canvassed the whole situation regarding the inspiration 
the Holy Scriptures. Bishop Kyle's book is recent (August, 1921). 



The Bible a Special Revelation 123 

would also be likely to vouchsafe the same kind of a 
revelation of the origin of the universe, of man, of sin, 
of the historical preparation for salvation, and so on 
through the whole Bible. 

d. Again, the regenerated person reasons that, if 
the origin of man is wrapped in obscurity, a like 
obscurity surrounds his purpose in this world and his 
destiny in the future. On the other hand, if he is 
sure of his origin as given in the Bible (Gen 1 126-28, 
2:7), then the logical inference is that God has created 
him for a worth-while purpose and destiny. Is it not 
evident that the Bible as a whole is organic, unified, 
coherent? Accept it at its face value, and there are 
no lacunae in the age-long process ; it is all divinely 
harmonious, luminous, rational and inspiring. 

(6) The superiority of positive assurance over nega- 
tion. 

Balance the value of the testimony of two men ; 
the one declares that he has received a religious experi- 
ence, the other that he has not received such an experi- 
ence. It would hardly be consistent for a man who 
has never tasted an apple to deny that it has a taste. 
For a person to call Christian experience a delusion, 
when he himself has never had such an experience, is 
utterly gratuitous and entirely aside of the mark. 

(7) Psychical assurance surer than sense assurance. 

All assurance comes back finally to the seat of con- 
sciousness. The experiences of sensation come in this 
way just as do any other psychical experiences. Men 
know truth only in the light of consciousness. You 
can know that there are trees on the college campus 



124 A System of Christian Evidence 

only because the proper sensory system has borne the 
impingement back into your consciousness. You ac- 
cept that experience as valid. Suppose that God 
makes an impingement on the consciousness by a 
more direct and intimate way, that is, by His own 
mind, why is not that experience just as valid and 
certain as when an experience comes in the round- 
about way of the senses? It is pitiful to think that 
many people are so steeped in materialistic ways of 
thinking that they can believe only in the validity of 
sensation, and care and know nothing about purely 
psychical and spiritual experiences. 3 Christ stated a 
very apt and trenchant truth : "That which is born of 
the flesh is flesh ; that which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit" (Jn. 3: 6-8). 

(8) The great "cloud of witnesses." 

Christian experience is not exceptional and isolated ; 
millions of believers bear testimony to it as a fact. 
Such honest and intelligent testimony ought not to be 
questioned. The reality of the experience is proven 
by the changed lives it has produced. There is a vast 
"cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12: 1). 

(9) Christian experience unique. 

No other religion or philosophy imparts anything 
like it. Regeneration is sui generis in the Christian 
system. Who has ever heard of a system of human 
philosophy giving "assurance" of truth, pardon and 

3. Too many of the psychologies of the day are materialistic and earthy 
in their teaching. One college text-book argues that the mind is not a 
distinct entity, but merely the result of brain functioning and that immor- 
tality is not possible because there can be no mental operations apart from 
"neurons." It is pathetic that the noble science of the human soul 
should thus be made "of the earth, earthy." 



The Bible a Special Revelation 125 

salvation ? How many moral and spiritual transfigura- 
tions in the lives of men have been effected by infidelity 
and rationalism? Has there ever been one? 

(10) Christian experience no delusion. 

a. Too many honest and intelligent people declare 
that they have had this experience. It is not probable 
that they would be unable to distinguish between 
chimera and reality. 

b. Many people have been changed for the better in 
every way by this experience. They have been rescued 
from lives of uncertainy, unbelief and sin, and have ever 
afterward lived uprightly. Justin the Martyr went from 
one human philosophy to another in search of truth, but 
found it only through an experience of Christ in his soul. 
Augustine was dissolute in his habits before his conver- 
sion; afterward he became Saint Augustine. John Bun- 
yan was a wicked man, worldly and profane, before his 
conversion ; he experienced God's saving grace, became 
a Christian, preached the gospel with power, went to 
Bedford jail for his faith, and wrote "The Pilgrim's 
Progress." Can infidelity produce any instances of such 
moral and spiritual transformation? Many other in- 
stances might be cited : Rowland Hill, John Newton, 
Charles Spurgeon, Dwight L. Moody, Jerry McAulley. 
Yes, Christianity has given the world many "twice-born 
men." 4 

c. The cardinal factors of a Christian experience are 
of such a character as to negate the charge of delusion. 
Let us analyze them carefully. They are these : assur- 
ance of God's reality, personality, love and goodness ; of 

4. Cf. Harold Begbie's "Twice-born Men." 



126 A System of Christian Evidence 

Christ as the Son of God, sent to save mankind ; of the 
Holy Scriptures as God's Book of truth ; of pardon and 
salvation from sin; of the Holy Spirit's witness within 
the soul ; of an immortality beyond this earthly life. How 
could such assurances be charged to mere hallucination? 
All of them involve a personal relation to God ; they are 
not vague and indeterminate. 

d. Here a question may be raised by the doubter: 
How do you know that it is the voice of God speaking 
in your soul in this experience ? Our reply is : when God 
speaks to a man's soul, He lets him know who is speak- 
ing. This may be illustrated : A little child has been put 
to bed at night. The room being dark, he becomes fright- 
ened. He calls to his father in the next room, "Father, 
are you there?" Will not the father answer in his own 
voice to assure the child that it is he? Will he disguise 
his tones and assume the voice of a stranger? Likewise 
our heavenly Father speaks to us in His oivn assuring 
tones, and so quiets our fears and resolves our doubts. 
Christ teaches this truth in His simile of the Good Sheph- 
erd : "When he hath put forth His own, He goeth 
before them, and the sheep follow Him ; for they know 
His voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will 
flee from him : for they know not the voice of strangers" 
(John 10:4, 5) ; also 14, 15: "I am the Good Shepherd; 
and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as 
the Father knoweth me and I know the Father." 



CHAPTER XII 
EXTERNAL PROOFS CONTINUED 

III. EXTERNAL PROOFS (continued). 

2. Proof from Christianity's salutary influence. 

( i ) Individual examples. 

Mention has already been made of notable conversions. 
Let us note further: Paul, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, 
Athanasius, Irenaeus, Augustine, Luther, Bunyan, John 
Newton, Rowland Hill, Luthardt, Christlieb, John B. 
Gough, Jerry McAulley, and many other twice-born men. 
Have infidelity and rationalism wrought such transforma- 
tions ? Have they not rather produced the opposite effect ? 
All these men were made better men by their conversion. 

(2) Its elevating influences on communities and na- 
tions, etc. 

The best civilization goes with the Bible, and the more 
heartily it is accepted, the more benign is its influence. In 
these recent years cannibal nations have become civilized 
through the power of the gospel. Note the work of Liv- 
ingstone, Hannington, Moffatt and Day in Africa ; 
Schwartz, Ziegenbalg, Carey in India ; Judson in Burmah, 
Paton in the New Hebrides, and many more. 

True Christianity has always fostered education; not 
only for privileged classes, but also for all people as* far 
as possible. Most Christian people are strong advocates 

127 



128 A System of Christian Evidence 

of our public schools here in America, and even those 
who hold themselves aloof from them to some extent 
have schools of their own in which the young are taught. 
The Christian Church has established many institutions 
of higher education, and was the first in the field in this 
respect in this country. Her motto has been to place the 
church and the school side by side. In mission stations 
in all lands this policy is pursued. 

Note, too, how Christianity has elevated the status of 
woman. Where it prevails she is placed on an equality 
with man, and is even treated with special respect. The 
Bible teaches that woman as well as man was created 
in the divine image (Gen. 1:27). Compare her status in 
Christian countries with her condition in Mohammedan 
countries and in those in which ethnic religion prevails. 1 
The Bible has done much also for human liberty, litera- 
ture, art and science. It has often opened the way for 
commerce. 

(3) Reasons for these uplifting effects. 

They are directly traceable to the Bible, which teaches 
love, purity, salvation from sin, duties to God and man, 
and imparts moral strength and spiritual vision through 
regeneration. 

(4) Why Christianity does not cure all ills. 
Because men do not volutarily submit to its gracious 

influence, nor accept the help that God offers them. 
Christianity will not coerce men to be good. It is a moral 
power, not a legal enactment. God wants no conscripts 
in His kingdom. This will explain many evils in the 

1. Cf. Kellogg: "Handbook of Comparative Religion;" Marshall: 
"Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions Compared." p. 44. Tisdall: 
"Comparative Religion;" Wells: "Why We Believe the Bible," pp. 27, 28. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 129 

world which would otherwise be cured by the morally 
potent influences of the Christian faith. If men will not 
take the needed medicine, they cannot be cured. God 
will do much for men in their trouble and sin; but one 
thing he will never do — invade tne region of human 
freedom. There would have been no sense in making 
men moral agents if God had constantly interfered with 
the exercise of their freedom. 

(5) Wrongs done in the name of religion. 

A favorite argument of infidels is the wrongs done 
by the Christian Church in ages gone by — persecutions, 
thumb-screws, St. Bartholemew's Days, Spanish inquisi- 
tions, fagots and burnings at the stake. 

What is the reply? All these wrongs were contrary to 
the teaching of the Bible; they were the outgrowth of 
natural perversion, of that depraved human nature which 
infidels believe to be good enough in its natural estate 
and will not believe that it can and should be transformed 
by divine grace. Therefore the Bible should not be 
charged with these cruelties. All informed persons know 
that they were practiced in the Dark Ages, when the 
Bible was largely neglected and kept from the people. It 
is unregenerate human nature that is responsible for 
every malpractice in history. Whenever that corrupt 
nature has been able to become sufficiently powerful, it 
has established an era of ungodly dominance and persecu- 
tion, whether it has exhibited its depravity in heathen- 
ism, in professed churchism, or in infidelity, as in the 
days of the French Revolution when reason was en- 
throned and faith was dethroned, and the River Loire ran 
red with the blood of martyred believers. 



130 A System of Christian Evidence 

It is to be noted that infidels never tire of expatiating 
on the persecutions by the Church in the Dark Ages, 
when the Bible was a suppressed book, and its real teach- 
ing little known and practiced; but they never mention 
the first three centuries of the Christian era, when the 
Church was in its purest state, and when its adherent 
suffered the most cruel persecutions for three centuries at 
the hands of the heathen, who were the unbelievers of 
those bloody days. 

Moreover, most of the martyrs of all times were be- 
lievers, holding firmly to the Bible. They were perse- 
cuted for the sake of their evangelical faith, and were 
not infidels. So far as we can recall, very few infidels 
ever perished by martyrdom. 

Let us note the true teaching of the Bible, and see 
whether it favors persecution: "But I say unto you, 
Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute 
you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in 
heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and 
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust" 
(Matt. 5:44, 45) ; "The second is, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself. There are none other command- 
ments greater than these" (Mk. 12:31; the first com- 
mandment refers to loving God). The parable of the 
wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:28-30) is expressly in- 
tended to prevent persecution ; for the wheat and the 
tares are to grow together until the last day, when God 
will separate them. Had professed Christians always 
remembered and heeded this teaching, they never would 
have tried to root up error by violence. Read also Rom. 
12:19-21 ("Avenge not yourselves, beloved," etc.) ; 1 Jn. 
4:7-11, and many similar passages. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 131 

3. Proofs from history. 

(i) Ancient manuscripts. 

It is true, we do not have any of the original auto- 
graphs of the Old and New Testaments. It would have 
been impossible to preserve them from decay and destruc- 
tion without a constant miracle ; and God would not have 
preserved them in that way, if He found that His truth 
could be carried down from generation to generation in 
some other way. No doubt, if we had the original manu- 
scripts, they would be worshiped today as fetiches. 

It should be remembered that we do not have the origi- 
nal manuscripts of any of the ancient writers, nor of 
those of the Middle Ages, and very few even of modern 
times. 

However, we do have many ancient manuscripts of the 
New Testament, and they are much more ancient than 
those of any of the classical authors. Therefore the New 
Testament is better attested than Herodotus, Homer, 
Plato, Caesar, and Cicero. Let us note : The earliest com- 
plete manuscript of Homer belongs to the thirteenth cen- 
tury; of Herodotus to the ninth century, "while Virgil, 
Cicero, Plato, and all the other classical writers are 
scarcely better off, and far inferior to the New Testament 
in manuscript authentification" (Wells). 2 Dr. Philip 
Schaff says : "In the absence of the autographs, we must 
depend upon copies, or secondary sources. But these are, 
fortunately, far more numerous and trustworthy for the 
Greek Testament than for any ancient classic." Then he 
quotes Westcott and Hort as follows: "In the variety 
and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text 
of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproach- 

2. "Why We Believe the Bible," p. 8. 



132 A System of Christian Evidence 

ably alone among ancient prose writings/' 3 Let us see 
how well the New Testament is attested by ancient manu- 
scripts : 

a. Codex Sinaiticus. Codex is the technical name for 
an ancient document (plural, codices). This manuscript 
was found by the great scholar, Tichendorf, in 1859 in 
the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai, 
and is now in the Imperial Library at Petrograd — 
unless it was destroyed in the recent troublesome times. 
The story of its discovery is very interesting. "It dates 
from the middle of the fourth century, and is written on 
fine parchment" (Schaff). 4 It contains the whole of the 
New Testament without any omissions, together with 
large portions of the Old Testament in the Septuagint 
Version. 

b. Codex Vaticanus. This manuscript is now in the 
Vatican at Rome; hence its name. Its date is also the 
middle of the fourth century. It was found in Egypt, 
and is very fine thin vellum ; said to be the oldest vellum 
manuscript in existence. It contains most of the Bible — 
indeed, all of it up to Hebrews 9:14, the rest being lost. 
How well the Bible is attested by ancient documentary 
evidence ! 

c. Codex Alexandrinus. This manuscript belongs to 
the fifth century, was probably written in Alexandria, 
Egypt, and is now in the British Museum. Dr. Schaff 
says that this codex occupies the third or fourth rank 
among the New Testament manuscripts in value for the 
fixing of the text. 

d. Codex Ephraemi. This document belongs to the 

3. Schaff: "Introduction to American Version," p. 13 (Westcott and 
Hort's Greek New Testament). 

4. ScharfF: ut supra, p. 18. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 133 

fifth century, and contains about two-thirds of the New 
Testament. The works of the Syrian father Ephraem 
are written over it (hence its name), for which reason 
it is somewhat hard to decipher. It is very valuable so 
far as it goes. It was written in Alexandria, and is now 
in the National Library in Paris. 

e. Many others. Besides these ancient codices, there 
are many others of more recent date. Thus we can see 
how rich the New Testament is in manuscript attestation. 

(2) Helps in determining the text of the Old Testa- 
ment. 

The Hebrew Targums are paraphrases of the Bible 
which greatly aid in determining and understanding the 
Hebrew Text. The word Targum means interpretation. 
The same may be said of the Talmud, which is the volum- 
inous Hebrew commentary on the Old Testament. Tal- 
mud means instruction. The Talmud consists of two 
divisions, the Mishna, which is the text itself (in either 
Babylonian or Palestinian), and the Gamara, which is 
the commentary on the text. Another great help is the 
Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old 
Testament, made in Egypt about 250 B. C. 

(3) Early translations of the New Testament. 

These are the Peshito, or Syriac version, about 150 A. 
D. ; the Itala, or old Latin version, 160 ; the Vulgate, the 
Latin translation by Jerome, latter part of the fourth 
century; the Coptic (old Egyptian), the Ethiopic and 
the Gothic, all of the fourth century, and the Armenian 
of the fifth. All these versions help to confirm the truth 
and integrity and emphasize the importance of the New 



134 A System of Christian Evidence 

Testament as having been written and gathered into the 
sacred canon at an early date. 

(4) Jewish and Christian care of their sacred books. 

Both guarded them with jealous care, especially in the 
earliest times. The Jews counted the letters and lines to 
make sure that no errors occurred, while imperfect 
copies were destroyed. Tampering with the text would 
therefore have been detected. Afterward errors and 
changes took place, as is evident from the variant read- 
ings in the several manuscripts, but, as has been said 
again and again by the most competent scholars, these 
variations consist mostly of mere verbal transpositions, 
and none of them affect in the least any doctrine or im- 
portant historical fact of the Bible. Of course, through 
the centuries many transcriptions and translation had to 
be made, and in this way the various readings came about. 

A notable infidel of the last century tried to throw dis- 
credit on the Bible by saying there was no printed copy 
of it until the fifteenth century. Of course not! No 
other book was printed before that time, because the art 
of printing was not invented until Gutenberg, who lived 
from 1400 to 1468. The first book ever printed with 
movable type was the Latin Bible; this Bible was finished 
by Gutenberg in 1455. Before that time, all books were 
copied by hand, the Holy Scriptures included. 

(5) An early Syraic version. 

In 1892 another important discovery was made in the 
monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai, by two women, 
Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson. 5 It was a Syriac palymp- 

5. Vide Cobern: "New Archeological Discoveries," pp. 176-186; 
Wright: "Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences," pp.228-237. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 135 

sest — that is, a manuscript that had been written on more 
than once. These ladies were aided by other expert schol- 
ars, and the conclusion was that the document must have 
been made from copies of the New Testament of about 
the year 150 A. D., proving that at that early date our gos- 
pels were accepted by the Christian Church as the true, 
authoritative ones. This was only a few years after the 
times of the apostles. Again we see how well the New 
Testament is authenticated by manuscripts. No classical 
author comes near having so much documentary proof. 

(6) Testimony of apostolic and church fathers. 

The study of patristics bears closely upon the sci- 
ence of Apologetics. From the days of the apostles 
to the fourth century — and, of course, ever afterward 
— we can clearly trace the proof of the existence and 
influence of the New Testament by the testimony of 
the early Christian writers. If this point is established, 
the charge of the gospels being inventions, myths and 
legends falls to the ground; the historicity of the 
gospel records is maintained. We shall examine some 
of this testimony. 

a. Clement of Rome wrote about the year 100, not 
long after the last New Testament book was written 
- — the gospel of St. John. In a lengthy letter written 
to settle a dispute among the Christians at Corinth, 
he cites the four Gospels, the Acts, five of Paul's let- 
ters, Hebrews, First Peter, James and Revelation— 
fourteen books and seventy-three references. 

b. The Epistle of Barnabas is as old as 120 A. D., 
and perhaps older. It makes citations from the gospel 
according to Matthew, introducing one of them by 



136 A System of Christian Evidence 

the well-known phrase, "It is written," used only in 
citing from the Holy Scriptures. 

c. "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," dis- 
covered about forty years ago, was written before 140 
A. D. It contains four references to "the Gospel of 
our Lord," in such a way as to indicate that a written 
record was clearly meant. Sentences are also used 
that seem to be taken from Matthew, Luke and John. 

d. The testimony of Polycarp is most valuable. 
He died as a martyr in 155, was a disciple of the 
Apostle John, and became bishop of Smyrna. A letter 
written by him contains definite citations from the 
New Testament, proving that at least a part of it was 
in circulation in the Christian Church at the time. 

e. Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp, prob- 
ably conversed with the apostles, and certainly knew 
some of Christ's own direct followers. In a book on 
Christ's teachings he informs us that Mark wrote his 
Gospel from what Peter told him, and that Matthew 
first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. This proves that 
in his day those Gospels were in existence. 

f. Justin Martyr was a convert to Christianity from 
heathen philosophy, was a learned scholar, and died 
as a matryr to his faith in 1.66. In his three defenses 
of the New Testament (previously referred to) he 
made two hundred references to and citations from the 
New Testament. He quotes from all four of the 
Gospels, which he calls "Memoirs of the Apostles." 
A significant detail is this : In one place he speaks 
of a fact concerning Peter, which he says came from 
"his (Peter's) Gospel"; the incident is recorded in 
the Gospel by Mark, who, according to Papias (see 



The Bible a Special Revelation 137 

above), obtained his information from Peter. How 
beautifully the testimony of the fathers agrees I 

g. Most valuable is the witness of Irenaeus, who 
was born in the first quarter of the second century, 
and became bishop of Lyons in 177. In his earlier 
years, while he still lived in Asia, he was associated 
with Polycarp, who, as we have seen, was a disciple 
of John the apostle. He also says that he knew other 
disciples whom the apostles had taught. "In his 
writings Irenaeus speaks of the four Gospels as having 
existed from the time of the apostles, and gives a 
definite account of the origin of each of them, men- 
tioning their writers by name" (Wells). 

Similar testimony might be cited from Clement of 
Alexandria and Tertullian of Carthage, with many 
other writers down to the year 400 A. D. "Indeed," 
says Dr. Wells, "if the New Testament had been en- 
tirely destroyed about the year 400 A. D., it might 
be almost completely recovered as cited in the pages 
of the early Christian writers." Compare the numer- 
ous quotations from the New Testament with the 
scarcity of quotations, contemporary or subsequent, 
from secular authors. The historian Rawlinson says: 
"It is of very rare occurrences for classical works to 
be distinctly quoted, or for authors to be mentioned 
by name, within a century of their publication." 
"Herodotus is said to be cited only once in the first 
century, once in the second, not at all in the third, 
and twice in the fourth. The first quotation from 
Thucydides is two centuries after his history was 
published" (Wells). 

h. Other early citations might have been made had 



138 A System of Christian Evidence 

space permitted. They can be barely mentioned here : 
the Apology of Aristides (125) ; Tatian's Diatessaron, 
meaning "the book of the four," a merging of the 
four Gospels into one consecutive narrative (about 
125) ; the Gospel of Peter (also about 125) ; and the 
Muratorian Canon. 7 

(7) The witness of early secular writers. 

a. Josephus (born 37 A. D.), the great Jewish his- 
torian, refers to Jesus as Christ or Messiah, speaks 
of His marvelous miracles and teaching, says He was 
crucified under Pontius Pilate and that He rose from 
the dead, tie also refers to John the Baptist and to 
James the brother of Jesus. All attempts to prove 
these references to be interpolations have failed. 

b. Tacitus informs us that Nero charged the 
Christians with burning Rome in order to clear him- 
self from the crime. This proves that there must have 
been many Christians in Rome in Nero's time (37-68 
A. D.), which must have been during the life time of 
most of the apostles. Then what ground can there be 
for denying that Christ lived, as some of the most 
radical unbelievers have been doing within the last 
few years? Tacitus also refers to Christ as having 
been crucified by Pontius Pilate in the reign of 
Tiberius. 

c. Pliny, the Younger (62-114), wrote to his em- 
peror (Trajan) from Bythinia, of which he was pro- 
consul in the years 106-108, about the numerous 
Christians in that province who were undergoing 
fierce persecution for the sake of their faith. We 

6. Wright: ut supra, pp. 207, 220-243. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 139 

summarize Pliny's statements : the Christians were 
numerous in Bythinia ; they were of every age and 
rank and of both sexes ; their influence was so great 
that the heathen altars were almost deserted ; after 
the most searching investigation he found no vices 
among them ; they had suffered persecution only be- 
cause they were Christians, not on any charge of 
crime; they held meetings at which they sang hymns 
of praise to Christ, made vows to live righteously, 
and partook of a "harmless meal," evidently the Lord 
Supper. 7 

d. The infidels, Celus, Lucian and Porphyry, con- 
stantly refer to the Old and New Testaments as if 
they were in existence in their day and were the 
accepted standards of the Christian Church. 

We need not pursue this investigation further, 
though many more convincing details might be pro- 
duced. Those who desire to continue their inquiries 
along this line of historical research should read some 
of the books cited in the footnotes and the Selected 
Bibliography. 

7. Cf. Turton: "The Truth of Christianity," pp. 417, 418; Schaff: 
"History of the Christian Church," Vol. II, pp. 68, 88, 202, 222. 



CHAPTER XIII 
EXTERNAL PROOFS CONTINUED 

III. EXTERNAL PROOFS (continued). 
4. Proofs from archeology. 

( i ) Character and abundance of the evidences. 

So much archeological discovery, confirmatory of 
the history and doctrines of both the Old Testament 
and the New, has become available that we can give 
only a sketch ; for many volumes have been written 
on the subject. Consult the bibliographies in the foot- 
notes and at the end of this volume. 

(2) Specific instances. 

a. Many nations have traditions of the creation of 
the universe, some of them, especially those of Baby- 
lonia, corresponding in a number of particulars with 
the Genetical narrative of creation. No nations have 
yet been found with a tradition to the effect that they 
have descended from the simians or other animals, or 
from any of the lower forms of life. There are adum- 
brations here and there in ethnic religions that men 
were made in the image of God or of the gods. These 
traditions are most significant, and would seem to be 
derived from the fact of an original divine creation. 
Besides two legends of creation, 1 the Babylonians have 

1. Cf. Barton: "Archeology and the Bible," pp. 235-357; also another 
account of the creation and the flood written at Nippur before 2000 B. C. 
pp. 278-282. 

140 



The Bible a Special Revelation 141 

a legend of the Sabbath and one of the fall of man, the 
latter with some striking agreements with Gen. 3. 2 

b. Most nations have a tradition of a vast and de- 
structive flood. The Gilgamesh poem contains inci- 
dents remarkably like those recorded in the Bible 
respecting the Noachian deluge. 3 The Biblical event, 
if true, would afford a reasonable source for this 
almost universal tradition. 

c. The famous Code of Hammurabi, discovered at 
Susa, Persia (the Shushan of the book of Esther), 
contains 248 laws formulated by this king of Babylon 
about 2250 B. C. This was the time of Abraham. It 
indicates precisely the state of civilization portrayed 
by the Bible for those times. It contains some laws 
remarkably like those given by Moses on Mount 
Sinai ; yet Moses lived more than a thousand years 
later. Infidels and negative critics were formerly wont 
to aver that writing was not yet known in the time 
of Moses, and that the decalogue was far too advanced 
in its moral standard for his day. Both these asserva- 
tions, once made with so much flourish, have been 
disproved by the discovery of the Code of Hammur- 
abi and other ancient monuments containing writings 
and laws. This Code proves that writing was common 
over a thousand years before Moses. "The Mosaic 
Code" was "not borrowed from the Babylonian." 4 

d. The Tel el Amarna tablets were found in Egypt 
in 1887, and are cuneiform inscriptions and writings 

2. Barton, as above, pp. 258-263. 

3. Barton, as above, pp. 273-277; also an account of "the patriarchs 
before the flood," pp. 264.-272. 

4. Barton, as above, pp. 313-341; Grimme: "The Law of Hammurabi 
and Moses" (a convincing book); Davies: "The Codes of Hammurabi 
and Moses;" Kyle: "The Deciding Voice of the Monuments," pp. 202- 
209; see other works in the Selected Bibliography. 



142 A System of Christian Evidence 

dating about 1400 B. C. They represent the status of 
affairs in Egypt and Palestine precisely as they are 
set forth in Genesis and Exodus. They prove, too, 
that there was much writing in the days of Moses; 
therefore that he could easily have written the Pen- 
tateuch. 

e. The city of Pithom has been found in upper 
Egypt. It corroborates the narrative regarding the 
Israelites having been compelled by their Egyptian 
taskmasters to "make bricks without straw." In some 
parts of store-chambers in that city there are bricks 
with good straw ; in courses higher up, bricks with 
only stubbles ; still higher up bricks without straw, 
but sometimes bound together with sticks. Unlike 
the usual Egyptian custom, the walls are built with 
mortar, showing that alien people built them. This 
is a wonderful corroboration of the Biblical history. 5 

f. The discovery of the Hittites confirms the Bible. 
Until recently nothing was known of these people 
outside of the Bible, and this fact gave unbelievers 
and critics a chance to discredit its historicity. But 
archeology proves that the Hitties were a numerous 
and powerful people, again vindicaing the Biblical 
records. 6 

g. What other archeologists have done to prove 
the Old Testament to be consistent and reliable, Sir 
William Ramsay and Dr. Camden M. Cobern have 
accomplished for the New Testament. Many histori- 

5. Turton: "The Truth of Christianity," p. 144; Kyle: "Moses and 
the Monuments," pp, 155-157. Dr. Kyle himself examined the ruins of 
Pithom; he also cites Naville and Edwards, the well-known Egyptologists. 

6. Cf. Kyle: "The Deciding Voice of the Monuments," pp. 104-106; 
Barton, nt supra, pp. 59-75; Wells: "Why We Believe the Bible," pp. 23, 
24. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 143 

cal, geographical and social representations in the 
gospels and epistles have been found to be correct. 
Ramsay has especially established the reliability of 
Luke as a historian; indeed, he has found Luke to be 
more trustworthy than some secular historians. Not 
an anachronism has been found in the Biblical his- 
tories. 7 

h. Much confirmation of the Biblical account of the 
origin and history of mankind has come from the re- 
searches of archeologists. The Bible teaches clearly 
that man was created in the image of God, was en- 
dued with a considerable degree of intelligence and 
with moral agency or free choice, was placed in a 
garden where he might have favorable environment 
and a fair chance for his life and for the development 
of moral character. It seems reasonable, and inspir- 
ing, too, to believe that God would thus deal with a 
sentient and rational person whom he brought into 
being. Although the Bible teaches that man fell into 
sin through the wrong use of his power of choice, yet 
God did not desert him, nor deprive him of his psychic- 
al enduements, but, in spite of some punishment, still 
followed him, cared for him, and tried to win him 
back to the way of righteousness. Thus man, en- 
dowed with intelligence and given a fair chance, was 
capable from the start of a considerable degree of 
civilization ; soon he could build cities, work in brass and 
iron, and make musical instruments (Gen. 4:17, 21, 22). 
Along the line of Seth there were righteous people 
who cared for God and did His will, as, for example, 

7. Cf. Ramsay: "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trust- 
worthiness of the New Testament;" Cobern: "The New Archeological 
Discoveries." 



144 A System of Christian Evidence 

Enoch, Methuselah and Noah. When a flood was 
threatened, Noah and his sons had sufficient mechan- 
ical intelligence to build a great ship called the Ark. 
After the flood many great cities were built. 

There is no hint in the Bible that man came up by 
an age-long process from the ooze and the slime, 
through mullusks, worms, reptiles, birds and apes, or 
from the same stock as the simians. According to 
the Bible, man was directly created in the divine 
image, and was placed in a garden, not in a jungle. He 
was a man, not a brute or a near brute. 

Now, there is much evidence in the discoveries of 
archeology to confirm the teaching of the Bible. In 
many ancient nations there are to be seen the remains 
of a high civilization. Note the vast cities and won- 
derful monuments whose remains have been exhumed 
in Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Ur of the Chaldees, 
Turkestan; in Mexico among the Aztecs; in Central 
America among the Toltecs ; in Peru among the Incas. 
According to Sayce, a noted archeologist, the civiliza- 
tion of Egypt even in the time of Moses was partly 
decadent, having reached its golden age some centuries 
prior. In all the places mentioned — and many more 
might be named — the people today are far inferior to 
their predecessors who lived there many centuries 
before Christ. As to the cave-men in Europe, it is 
reasonable to believe that they were degenerate peo- 
ple who moved from the great centers of civilization 
in central Asia and north-eastern Africa. If* the people 
of civilized countries deteriorated, as we have just 
seen that they did, why should not the people who 
moved far away into the "hinterlands" also deteriorate? 



The Bible a Special Revelation 145 

In Africa almost every tribe furnishes clear evidence 
of having descended from an enlightenment superior 
to their own; this is proved especially by their lan- 
guages, which are constructed on grammatical prin- 
ciples which the natives themselves do not understand, 
but which educated missionaries are able to decipher. 
Right here in our own country we have many proofs 
of the decline of people who, some generations ago, 
moved into isolated regions remote from civilizing and 
Christianizing influences. It is only where certain 
uplifting factors, like Christianity coupled with educa- 
tion, are at work that mankind advances. Even with 
all our boasted present-day enlightenment and prog- 
ress, we must admit that some of the wonderful "lost 
arts" of the ancient civilizations have never been re- 
covered. We have not yet found out the architectural 
secrets of the erection of the pyramids of Egypt. 

Our reasoning is this : the Biblical representation of 
man's start in the world and the high civilization he 
attained in ancient times agrees precisely with the 
findings of archeology along the same lines. 8 

i. The same truth obtains in regard to religion. 
The most recent researches indicate that the further 
back any religion is traced towards its source, the 
purer it becomes. This is true in Babylonia, Egypt, 
India, Burmah, Ceylon, Thibet, China and many other 
countries where thorough investigation has been made. 
There is no evidence anywhere that a people have 
arisen by their own efforts from fetichism to poly- 
theism and finally to monotheism. Wherever such 

8. Many works might be cited here, but we refer the reader to our 
Selected Bibliography under the caption, "The Bible and Archeology." 



146 A System of Christian Evidence 

transformations have occurred — and they have — they 
have been effected by the introduction of an outside 
influence, namely, Christianity. 9 Again these facts 
synchronize with the teaching of the Bible. 

9. Cf. Kellogg: "A Handbook of Comparative Religion," pp. 158-160; 
Fairbairn: "Studies in the Philosophy of Religion," p. 12; Orr: "The 
Christian View of God and the World, pp. 75, 409-414; Tisdall: 
"Christianity and Other Faiths" and "Comparative Religion;" Valentine: 
"Natural Theology," pp. 194-208. 



CHAPTER XIV 

EXTERNAL PROOFS CONTINUED 

III. EXTERNAL PROOFS (Continued). 
5. Proofs from Biblical criticism. 

( i ) Definitions. 

a. Of Lower Biblical Criticism: This is the scientific 
investigation of the ancient manuscripts and the original 
languages, in order to determine as nearly as possible the 
correct text of the Holy Scriptures. In other words, it 
is a scholarly effort to get back to the original inspired 
autographs of the Biblical writers. It is also known, and 
very properly, as Textual Biblical Criticism. 

b. Of Higher Biblical Criticism: This is historical 
and literary research regarding the origin, trustworthiness 
and authorship of the Bible and its various parts or 
books. Sometimes this discipline is known as Literary 
and Historical Criticism. No name that has been given to 
it is entirely satisfactory, because it covers so wide a scope 
and so great a range of investigation. The name Higher 
Criticism was given to it by Eichhorn, the German Bibli- 
cal critic, about the beginning of the nineteenth century. 

This division into Higher and Lower Criticism does not 
mean that the latter is of an inferior kind or quality of 
investigation, but simply that it precedes the Higher and 
forms its basis. 

(2) Legitimate Biblical Criticism. There is a legiti- 
mate Biblical criticism. The word "criticism" in this con- 

147 



148 A System of Christian Evidence 

nection has a scientific and technical meaning. It does not 
mean fault-finding, but close, thorough-going research. 
When we speak of ''literary criticism" as applied to gen- 
eral literature, we do not mean the mere finding of flaws, 
but also the proper appreciation of beauty and merit. In 
true Biblical criticism evangelical scholars believe as much 
as do the radicals and liberalists. What we want is 
the truth, which can be discovered only by the most 
careful and diligent investigation in matters of history 
and literary structure. Our own observation proves 
that evangelical men are just as judicious and thorough 
in their researches as are others. 

Thus evangelical preachers and teachers should not 
rail indiscriminately, at Biblical and Higher Criticism, 
for that proves their misunderstanding of scientific 
terminology. They should always distinguish between 
Biblical criticism and radical, negative and destructive 
criticism. 

(3) Criticism and Scholarship. It must not be thought 
that the "negative" or "radical" or "destructive" or the so- 
called "mediating" criticism of the Bible has won the day 
in the realm of scholarship. True, the claim of a monopoly 
of scholarship has often been made in a high and mighty 
way by the liberalists; but such boasting simply proves 
their own lack of thoroughness, and their unwilling- 
ness to examine both sides of the question at issue. 1 

1. No matter from which side it comes, the boast of great "scholar- 
ship," is to be regretted. It does not accord with the Christian grace of 
humility. No real scholar will brag of his erudition. Knowledge is a 
relative matter. Some people know more and some less, but no one 
knows a great deal. The author of this volume makes no claim, much less 
any boast, of great learning. Perhaps he knows enough to know how vast is 
his ignorance. No man has a right, and no set of men have a right, to 
lay claim to a monopoly of scholarship, and hence to scorn and discount 
the intellectual acquirements of others. To those who hold themselves 
up with a superior mien we would recommend the reading of several 
apposite passages of Scripture: Ps. 147:6; Prov. i3'-io; 15:33; 16:18; 
Matt. 5: 5; Lk. 14: 11; Rom. 12: 16; 1 Tim. 3: 6; 1 Pet. 5:5; Jas. 4: 10. 



The Bible a Special Revelation 149 

The so-called "assured results" of the dismembering 
critics of the Bible have been shown again and again 
to be far from "assured," and the traditional or ortho- 
dox view has been vindicated by facts that cannot 
be gainsaid and logic that cannot be refuted. No 
greater and more serious mistake can be made than to 
suppose that the whole trend of modern scholarship 
is on the side of liberalism. The conservative scholars 
of the day are numerous, capable and outspoken, and 
have been ever since the rise of the liberal propaganda. 
Should anyone doubt the truth of this assertion, we 
refer him to the long list of evangelical works in our 
Selected Bibliography near the close of this volume. 
Surely such a catalogue is impressive, and ought to 
make even the liberalists pause and take notice. 

(4) The mediating criticism. 

Attention should be given at this point to the so- 
called "mediating" Biblical critics. Their purpose 
seems to be to mediate between the views of Graf, 
Wellhausen, etc., and the evangelical viewpoint. They 
accept the premises of the dissecting critics, and yet 
seem to think that they can salvage enough of the 
Bible and Christianity from the debris to prevent their 
total destruction and even to maintain their sufficiency 
as a sure guide in matters of religion. To cite a con- 
spicuous example, Dr. S. R. Driver, in his book, "An 
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament" 
revised edition, 1913), holds that his critical view 
does not annul Biblical inspiration ; rather, it shows how 
God inspired the Bible; it is a question of the mode of 
inspiration, not the fact. Indeed, he declares that these 



150 A System of Christian Evidence 

critical views take the inspiration of the Bible "for 
granted." 

To these contentions we must give some considera- 
tion. Take Driver's own case. What he says about 
inspiration is said only in the introduction. In the 
body of his book inspiration is not even mentioned, 
and no effort is made to uphold it. On the contrary, 
the author begins his labored discussion by pointing 
out that there is a contradiction (p. 8) between Gen. I 
and 2; then he proceeds to show that all along the 
history there are irreconcilable discrepancies, which 
can be explained only, he contends, on the theory of 
composite authorship — that is, many writers had a 
hand in the composition of the Bible, and the redactors 
(editors) did not always harmonize the variant stories. 

Now let the reader think clearly. What kind of 
divine inspiration would that be which would permit 
the Holy Spirit to contradict Himself? If the Bible 
is full of errors and contradictions, it cannot be divinely 
inspired. However, to guard the truth properly at 
this point, we hold that there are no discrepancies in 
the Bible. At first sight there may seem to be some, 
but judicious and thorough investigation removes 
them. Our point here, however, is that the position 
of the mediating critics is inconsistent; it cannot be 
maintained at the bar of reason. Their views greatly 
injure, if they do not entirely destroy, confidence in 
the divine inspiration and authority of the Book of 
God. 

A certain class of liberalistic critics seem to accept 
the orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ ; at least, 
they call Him Lord and Saviour ; they want to be called 



The Bible a Special Revelation 151 

evangelical, and they resent being termed heretical. 
We ought honestly to consider their claims. The facts 
are these. Although they profess to stand on evan- 
gelical ground regarding the person of Christ, yet 
there are portions of the Bible which they will not 
accept as the veritable Word of God, but which they 
treat as myth, legend, allegory, folklore, human tradi- 
tion, primitive belief, and pious invention — almost 
anything but inspired truth. But Christ endorsed the 
Old Testament again and again ; how, then, can they 
believe in His divinity and redeemership ? For if they 
are correct in their view of the Old Testament, He 
must have been mistaken. The liberalists also often 
hold loose views regarding the New Testament, accept- 
ing only what approves itself to their reason. But 
it is difficult to see how they can obtain a true and 
complete view of Christ when they reject large por- 
tions of the only records we have of His birth, person 
and work. Thus, with all their boast of reason and 
critical acumen, they are illogical ; it is not the real 
Christ of the Bible and of history whom they accept, 
but a Christ of their own contriving. In such a case 
each man has his own Christ, according to his sub- 
jective views, and the world has no real universal 
Saviour. To reject certain parts of the New Testa- 
ment records means to cast uncertainty upon all of 
them. 

To prove that the above statements are true, press 
these critics to the wall, and compel them to define 
their doctrine of Christ, and they will have to admit, 
at least in most cases, that they do not hold the full 
evangelical doctrine set forth in the Bible and accepted 



152 A System of Christian Evidence 

by ecumenical Christianity. To specify, they do not 
accept ex animo the virgin birth of Christ, His deity, 
or the vicarious atonement He wrought for the world, 
or some other doctrine clearly taught in Holy Writ. 
No; you cannot divorce Christ and the Scriptures; 
they are indissolubly bound together. Either the 
Sacred Scriptures give a true and trustworthy delinea- 
tion of Christ, or we have no trustworthy account of 
Him, and therefore have no real objective Saviour. 

(5) Reference to Bibliography. 

In this place it is impossible to reply to all the 
contentions of the liberal critics, or to present all the 
positive arguments of the conservatives. To do this 
thoroughly would require volumes. Readers who are 
interested in the critical problems are referred to the 
powerful books on Biblical criticism cited in our 
Selected Bibliography. 

6. Proof from the principle of causality. 

This principle is that every effect or event must have 
an adequate cause, which is a self-evident proposition, 
like an axiom in mathematics. Christianity and its 
institutions are here ; how shall we account for them ? 
Apparently the means employed for its propagation 
were very weak. Humanly speaking, the Jews were 
not a powerful or influential people. They were en- 
slaved in Egypt for several centuries, and at last, after 
a checkered career as a nation, they were carried into 
exile, and finally their nationality was destroyed by 
the Roman armies. Yet the religion they received 
has come down to us, and its influence, especially as 
enlarged by Christianity, is the greatest religious force 



The Bible a Special Revelation 153 

in the world today ; while that of the powerful nations 
which surrounded them is unknown save as we gather 
the data from books or exhume them from old ruins. 
Why this difference? 

Christ was of humble nationality and birth ; He had 
no wealth nor worldly power at His command ; He 
forbade the use of arms and force to promulgate His 
religion; His immediate followers were humble and 
comparatively unlearned people ; contrast His position 
with that of Caesar and His religion with the almost 
universal paganism of His day. Remember also how 
bitterly Christ and His disciples were opposed by the 
Jews and Gentiles. And the Founder of the Christian 
religion was crucified as a malefactor, crucifixion being 
the Roman mode of capital punishment at that time. 
Yet in three centuries Christianity, thus founded, had 
become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, 
and ever since has gone on its conquering way, in spite 
of persecution, yes, even in spite of the weaknesses of 
its own adherents and the many traitors and defaulters 
in its own ranks. Today it is the most potent influence 
for good in the world, and commands the allegiance of 
millions of people, many of them scientists, philos- 
ophers, statesmen, men of vision and practical affairs. 
Are myths, legends, allegories, "tendencies," or any 
other natural means an adequate cause for all these 
marvelous effects? Our answer is, No! On the other 
hand, if the Bible is God's Book and Christ is the 
Redeemer of the world, a sufficient cause for the effect 
has been assigned. Since no other adequate cause can 
be found, ought not men of learning, science and phi- 
losophy to accept the only adequate hypothesis? Why 



154 A System of Christian Evidence 

hunt about for obscure causes when there is a sufficient 
one right at hand? 

Here we give space to a pertinent quotation from a 
literary scholar, w r ho is not a professional theologian : 

"It is foreign to our purpose to discuss the various 
theories which have been advanced to explain the 
genesis and power of the Christian religion, from the 
cynical Gibbon to the sentimental Renan and the ra- 
tionalistic Strauss. One remark may be permitted. It 
has been our lot to read an immense amount of litera- 
ture on the subject; and, with no bias in the orthodox 
direction, we are bound to admit that no theory has yet 
appeared which, from purely natural causes, explains 
the remarkable life and marvellous influence of the 
Founder of Christianity." 

7. Proof from the integrity of the Bible. 

By integrity, as has been said before, is meant that 
the Bible has been kept intact, free from essential error 
since it was originally written by inspired penmen. 

On this thesis only a few words are needed. The 
proof lies in this fact : The Bible has been copied and 
translated many times, and there are from ancient 
times to the present many manuscripts of the whole or 
parts of the Bible; yet, in spite of all this varied his- 
tory, there is perfect agreement on every essential fact, 
doctrine and historical event recorded on its pages. 
This agreement is most remarkable, and can be ex- 
plained only on the basis of special divine care. In- 
deed, it would have been unreasonable for God to give 
a special revelation for the guidance and salvation of 
the world, see to its being written and collected in 



The Bible a Special Revelation 155 

book form, and then fail to preserve it throughout the 
ages. He has preserve the human race during all time 
since its genesis ; He has preserved the inorganic world 
from disintegration, life from destruction, and all the 
varied species of plants and animals true to their type. 
By analogy it is credible that He has also preserved 
His revealed Word. 

8. Proofs from the genuineness of the Biblical 
books. 

By genuineness is meant that the books were written 
by the authors to whom they have been ascribed. 

On this subject volumes of great erudition have been 
written, and are still coming from the press. We can- 
not amplify here, but must refer the reader to a num- 
ber of valuable books in the Selected Bibliography. 

We pause, however, to dwell for a few moments on one 
point. Many strong reasons have been given by capable 
scholars for the belief that Moses wrote the greater part 
of the Pentateuch. Let us suggest a few reasons : 

(i) It is the traditional view, and has come down to 
us in an almost undisputed succession from the time of 
Joshua. The Jews believed it before and at the time of 
Christ ; our Lord and His apostles believed it ; since their 
time almost all Jews and Christians have believed it. 

(2) If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the Biblical his- 
tory and doctrine are consistent throughout ; otherwise 
the Bible becomes more or less of a hodge-podge, many 
of its direct statements must be denied outright, and thus 
its integrity and credibility fall to the ground. 

(3) Archeology proves that there was much writing 
in the times of Moses ; therefore it would have been both 



156 A System of Christian Evidence 

a physical and psychological possibility for him to write 
the book. 

(4) According to the Biblical record, Moses was an 
educated man, trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, 
who themselves had a vast literature; therefore it is 
more likely that he would have been selected to write the 
Hebrew records than any one else of his day, or sub- 
sequent to it. 

(5) It is far more probable that a genius like Moses 
would have written the Pentateuch than that some un- 
known person or persons would have produced it, and 
then would have crept into covering, disappeared com- 
pletely from all historical records, Biblical and otherwise, 
and permitted the whole credit to be given to a man who 
had written nothing or very little. To deny the Mosaic 
authorship of the Pentateuch creates more difficulties 
than it solves. 

(6) The Mosaic authorship is upheld by numerous 
references to it in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, many 
of the Psalms and prophecies, and by our Lord and His 
apostles. Take a concordance and note how often the 
phrase, "the law of Moses," and similar expressions 
occur in the Bible. 

For these reasons, and many others, both internal and 
external, we believe that Moses is rightfully named the 
author of the Pentateuch. It is not necessary to assume 
that he wrote it all with his own hand ; scribes may have 
aided him; but he evidently had editorial supervision. 
Nor need we assume that he wrote the last chapter of 
Deuteronomy describing his death and burial; for after- 
ward Joshua took up the work of leadership, and may 



The Bible a Special Revelation 157 

have easily added that chapter, 2 and then continued the 
history throughout his own life. There is no direct in- 
ternal or external proof that Moses had any documents 
before him when he wrote Genesis ; but he may have 
had. Writing was in vogue long before the time of Abra- 
ham, and records of some kind may have come down to 
Moses. But this is only a reasonable guess. Moses could 
have been inspired as a compiler and editor just as well 
as an original composer. 3 The Pentateuch is not a collec- 
tion of literary bric-a-brac, but bears the marks of unity 
of authorship, historical continuity and divinity of pur- 
pose and plan. 4 

On the genuineness and unity of Isaiah, see Dr. George 
L. Robinson's works referred to in the Selected Bibliog- 
raphy ; on Daniel see Dr. R. D. Wilson ; on the gospels, 
Turton, Mullins, Vedder, Wells, Robertson ; on the Acts, 
Ramsay and Robertson ; on the epistles and Revelation, 
consult the articles in loco in "The International Standard 
Bible Encyclopedia" and Davis's "A Dictionary of the 
Bible." 

2. Any one who will read the touching narrative of the death and 
burial of Moses (Deut. 34: 1-6) and the rest of the chapter without bias, 
must realize that some survivor wrote it in loving memory of the depar- 
ted leader. Even then the record must have been divinely inspired, for 
there was no human being besides Moses present on Mount Pisgah when 
he died and was buried. 

3. The following scholars uphold the Mosaic authorship of the Penta>- 
teuch: Hengstenberg, Keil, Franz Delitzsch, Christlieb, Cave, Robertson, 
Orr, Sayce, Grimme, Hommel, Naville, Urquhart, McKim, Redpath, 
Griffith, Green, Bissell, Bartlett, Moeller, McGarvey, Kyle, Wiener, Finn. 
See the titles of their works in the Selected Bibliography. 

4. Cf. Kyle: "The Problem of the Pentateuch," p. 248. The entire 
book is an argument for the single authorship of the Pentateuch. 



CHAPTER XV 

EXTERNAL PROOFS CONTINUED 

III. EXTERNAL PROOF (continued). 
9. Proofs from science. 

(i) In another division of this work (Part IV) we 
shall give some further details on this thesis. Just now 
we are concerned to say that all men ought to love science. 
It is proper to reject "science falsely so called," but it is 
never right to scoff at science per se. Does not true 
science try to "think God's thoughts after Him" ? Is not 
the whole cosmos God's handiwork? What could be 
more inspiring than to study it with such a thought in 
mind? No man ought to be more interested in science 
than the theologian ; for he believes that God made every- 
thing, and made it good. Science is knowledge validated 
and classified. Can any scholar object to such study? 

(2). The Bible frequently touches on the various 
realms of scientific inquiry. The saying that the Bible is 
"only a book of religion" is wrong. The proper state- 
ment is that its chief purpose is religious, but since its 
religion is a practical religion, intended for this world 
as well as the next, it goes hand in hand with historical 
and scientific development. It should never be relegated 
off to one side of the life and thought of the world, as if 
it were a sort of luxury for recluses. No ; it touches sci- 
ence vitally in many ways from beginning to end, and will 
not be divorced from its divinely appointed companion. 

158 



The Bible a Special Revelation 159 

(3) Although we cannot amplify the argument here, 
we desire to record it as our earnest conviction that there 
is no conflict between the Bible and true science. Of 
course, wrong Biblical interpretations and mere specula- 
tions of science may not agree. One would not want 
them to agree. Many of the foremost scholars of the day, 
in the spheres of both physical science and theological 
science, have shown how beautifully and wonderfully the 
legitimate inductions of natural science and the teachings 
of the Bible coincide. For example, the progressive proc- 
ess of bringing the world into a habitable state as set 
forth in the first chapter of Genesis corresponds precisely 
with the order of events determined by geology. But em- 
pirical science has not proved the theory of spontaneous 
generation, 1 , nor the transmutation of species, nor the 
evolution of man from the same stock as the simians ; 2 
nor does the Bible teach those views. Unproved hypo- 
theses should never be promulgated as science; but as 
far as science has proved its premises, it walks amicably 
in step with the Bible. 

(4) Perhaps it will not be amiss to add that scientific 
opinions often change. For instance, in former days the 
nebular hypthesis, first advanced by Laplace, was all the 
vogue in the scientific world, and we then accepted it to 
be in perfect accord with the Genetical account of the 
creation and development of the univeres (Gen. 1:1-3). 
And we confess that it still seems to us to be a plausible 

1. Cf. Drummond: "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," chapter on 
"Biogenesis;" Nevison Loraine: "The Battle of Belief," pp. 148-154; 
"The Evolution of the Earth and its Inhabitants" (pp. 91, 93, 94, 107), 
by five Yale University professors. The page references are to Professor 
Woodruff's chapter on "The Origin of Life," in which he discusses seven 
different theories, none of which solve the problem. 

2. Cf. Fairhurst: "Theistic Evolution," pp. 59-83. The author quotes 
from many leading scientists on these topics. 



160 A System of Christian Evidence 

scientific guess. But now it is questioned by many scien- 
tists, who are advocating the so-called planetesimal the- 
ory, which, to our mind, does not appear to be as reason- 
able as its predecessor. 3 But the point is, since scientific 
men are constantly shifting from one viewpoint to anoth- 
er, no one needs to be in a hurry to give up the Biblical 
account of things because it does not always harmonize 
with scientific conjectures. The eminent geologist, Charles 
Lyell, once said: "The French Institute enumerated not 
less than eighty geological theories which were hostile to 
the Scriptures; but not one of these theories is held to- 
day." 4 In Germany, where Darwinism once was popular 
among scientists, it has now been practically abandoned. 5 
May not Christians possess their souls in patience? 

10. Proofs from the Biblical world- view. 

(i) That world-view (in other words, that philos- 
ophy) which is the most rational and uplifting is the 
one that should be accepted. 6 Let us note the world-view 
(German, Weltanschauung and W eltansicht) set forth 
in the Bible, and see how comprehensive and engaging it 
is. Let us do away with mere cavilling about small mat- 
ters, and look at the Biblical teaching in the large. 

(2) First, the Bible teaches that there is a God — one 
who is personal, all-wise, all powerful, righteous and be- 
neficent ; and that He created and governs the universe. 
Is not that an appealing view? Ought not everybody to 

3. "The Evolution of the Earth and Its Inhabitants" (p. 11). Pro- 
fessor Barrell says that "now not much remains of the original conception 
of Laplace." This book is written by pure scientists, is given over to the 
theory of evolution, and never suggests Ahe remotest hint of God or any 
supernatural power. How much of the speculative science of the day is 
"of the earth, earthy!" 

4. See J. W. Porter: "Evolution: A Menace," p. 47. 

5. Cf. Dennert: "At the Deathbed of Darwinism" (English trans- 
lation). 

6. A great and inspiring book on this subject is Orr: "The Chris- 
tian View of God and the World." 



The Bible a Special Revelation 161 

rejoice in that fact? Does any one prefer to live in a 
universe that has not been created and is not ruled by an 
intelligent and all-powerful personal Being? Think of 
being satisfied to live in a world which has no competent 
pilot at the wheel, but that is going along — oh, well, some- 
how or other, no one knows how ! Sad to say, it does not 
take much to satisfy some people! That seems to be the 
case with people who think that there is no supreme per- 
sonal God. 

But suppose for the sake of the argument that 
there is such a God as the Bible depicts, what great 
things follow logically? Then He is wise and power- 
ful enough to uphold the universe ; then He must have 
made it for a good and wise purpose ; then He can and 
will guide it to its noblest destiny; then He cares for 
His rational creatures, saves them from sin and misery 
(if they are willing), and brings them to immortal bliss 
and glory in fellowship with Himself; then, too, this 
wonderful universe, when all evil has been elided from 
it, will be the eternal habitation of the intelligent moral 
beings He has created; for the Bible says, "There shall 
be new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth 
righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13). There you have the 
Biblical world-view in the large. Is it not attractive? 
A pessimist once said, when this view was presented 
to him, "It is too beautiful to be true !" Our reply is, 
It is too beautiful not to be true! If the world is a 
rational world, it must be true. Compare it with other 
world-views and philosophies — Materialism, Panthe- 
ism, Dualism, Positivism, Theosophy, Hinduism, 
Buddhism. 

(3) From an ethical and spiritual viewpoint the 



162 A System of Christian Evidence 

Biblical system is far superior to any other conception. 
It teaches that man is a free being, capable of choice 
and of moral character; it represents man as having a 
spiritual faculty with which to hold communion with 
the Ultimate Reality, the personal God who created 
all finite realities. This view of man agrees with the 
science of psychology, which recognizes — at least, it 
should recognize — that man has, not only intellectual 
faculties, but also ethical and spiritual faculties, and 
that the latter are just as outstanding and integral a 
part of his physical constitution as are any other func- 
tioning powers that he possesses. 

(4) The Christian system also teaches the best 
philosophy; not in an abstruse and technical fashion, 
overburdened with difficult abstract terms, but in* a 
clear, straightforward way that is easily grasped. The 
great problem of philosophy is to find the ultimate 
unifying principle of the cosmos, which, as all men 
can see, is made up of a marvelous diversity of parts. 
What is the only adequate unifying principle and 
power in so vast a universe with such endless variety ? 
It is evidently personality. An all-wise, omnipotent Per- 
sonality is the only power that can hold all things in a 
harmonious whole. An ego is the only true and ultimate 
solidarity. So it is with human Ihood. So with God. 
He is the absolute I; One and Only; the great Open 
Secret; the only One who can solve for us "the riddle 
of the Universe." 

Therefore we conclude that the Bible exhibits the 
only adequate and satisfying world- view. This dis- 
cussion leads us logically to the next major division of 
our system of Apologetics. 



PART III 

CHRISTIAN THEISM AND OPPOSING 
THEORIES 



PART III 

CHRISTIAN THEISM AND OPPOSING 
THEORIES 



CHAPTER XVI 
CHRISTIAN THEISM 

I. REASONS FOR THIS THESIS. 

We have just seen that the Biblical (or Christian) 
world-view is an attractive and rational one. It im- 
plies the existence of God as the Creator, Preserver 
and Redeemer of the world. Some people may think 
that a discussion of the existence of God does not 
belong specifically to the discipline of Christian Apol- 
ogetics, but should be left for the science of Natural 
Theism. However, in these days when many counter- 
views are promulgated, all of which, if accepted, would 
involve the rejection of Christianity, we believe that 
thoroughness requires the presentment of the theistic 
proofs and the refutation of the opposing arguments. 
In the old days of Deism it was not necessary to pre- 
sent the proofs of the divine existence, for then it was 
seldom questioned; it was only necessary to vindicate 
the character of the God of the Bible; but today 
atheism and materialism stalk abroad, and therefore 
any adequate treatment of the evidences of Christianity 
must deal with these undermining conceptions. 

164 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 165 

II. CHRISTIAN THEISM. 

1. Definitions. 

(i) Theism is the doctrine of God as a personal, 
transcendent and immanent Being. The word "theism" 
is. from the Greek, theos, meaning God. 

(2) Natural Theism is the science which treats of 
the existence and character of God in the light of 
nature and reason. It is also called Rational Theism 
and Natural Theology. 

(3) Christian Theism is the science which treats 
of the existence and character of God according to the 
Bible, in addition to the teaching of nature and reason. 
Other terms for Christian Theism are Biblical Theism 
and Revealed Theology. 

2. Biblical proofs of the divine existence. 

The Bible nowhere attempts to prove the divine 
existence, but takes it for granted. In two places it 
says : "The fool (that is, the scoffer) hath said in his 
heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1, 53:1). This 
is, no doubt, an example of the fundamental insight of 
the inspired writers in general, for the person who says 
in his heart, "There is no God," is likely to scoff at 
everything sacred. But remember that the Bible does 
not call the honest doubter or agnostic by this epithet. 

The exalted character ascribed to God in the Bible, 
surpassing so greatly the conceptions of human phil- 
osophies and the ethnic religions, is one of the strong- 
est proofs of its inspiration. It is difficult to under- 
stand how writers living so long ago, even at the 
beginning of human history, could have gotten such a 
conception without divine aid, especially when all the 



166 A System of Christian Evidence 

nations around them were steeped in idolatry. Why 
were the Hebrew writers the only ones who had such 
lofty conceptions? And how does it occur that all of 
them, from Genesis to Revelation, had the same ideas 
of God? Why were they alone monotheists? Inspira- 
tion and revelation furnish the only adequate 
hypothesis. 

Such a portrayal of God as is found in the Bible is 
the most convincing proof of His existence, for how 
could the conception of God have arisen if there is no 
God? Note, too, the calm assurance of the Biblical 
writers in speaking of God, just as if from the begin- 
ning He had clearly and unmistakably revealed Him- 
self to them. Here we have good evidence for both 
the existence of God and the divine inspiration of the 
Bible. 

3. Corroborative proofs of the divine existence. 1 

( i ) The General Argument. 

The General Argument is the argument for the 
divine existence which is based on the universal belief 
in God and the universal religious instinct. 

That all nations and tribes believe in supernatural 
beings cannot be denied. Scientists themselves have 
made detailed investigations, and report the above 
statement to be true. 

Now, if there is no God, how could the idea of God 
ever arise in the human mind? Could a God-idea 
evolved of its own accord out of a no-God ground or 
basis? Can water rise higher than its source? If there 
is nothing in existence but material substance, and if 

I. Many works on both Christian and Natural Theism have been 
written; in the Selected Bibliography a number of them are listed. 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 167 

material substance has falsely led almost all people to 
believe in God, then material substance must be a 
universal falsifier, not to be trusted in any case. 

(2) The Cosmological Argument. 

This is the argument for the divine existence that is 
based on the law of causality. 

This principle is that event must have an adequate 
cause. The world is here; we cannot deny its exist- 
ence. It is contingent, for it is made up of parts, each 
of which is dependent on other parts ; hence as a whole 
it must be dependent on something other than itself. 
Being made of finite parts, it must be finite as whole, 
however immense. Therefore it cannot be eternal, for 
that which is eternal must be absolute, infinite and 
independent of anything outside of itself. Therefore 
the world must have had a beginning. But it could 
not have created itself ; ergo, it must have had a Creator 
— God. 

It is also an orderly world, a cosmos, not a chaos; 
therefore it could not have came about by chance. The 
only adequate cause of an orderly world is an ordering 
Intelligence — a personal God. 

(3) The Teleological Argument. 

This is the argument for the divine existence which 
is based on the evidence of design, purpose and adapta- 
tion in the world. It is known as the argument from 
design ; also from final cause. 

Note the many proofs of design in the world, and of 
adaptation of means to ends: the eye for sight (for 
what else could this organ have been intended?) ; the 



168 A System of Christian Evidence 

ear for hearing (how wonderfully constructed for its 
specific purpose!) ; the brain, the heart, the lungs, the 
digestive apparatus, the foot, the whole human organ- 
ism, each part functioning specifically and all working 
together in a common purpose. Can any one believe 
that all this could have come about by mere fortuity? 
That would be too great a miracle for even the most 
credulous to believe. But if God framed man's body 
as the Bible teaches (Gen. 2 17), all is clear as day. 

The many wonderful chemical combinations, all 
adapted for a useful end, afford proof of intentionality. 
So do vegetable organisms ; animal life and instincts ; 
the air for breathing ; water for drinking and purifying ; 
vegetables for food, sunshine and rain and bland winds 
to promote life — all speak in clamant tones of purpose 
and adaptation. All is evidence of intelligence. 

Note man himself with his mentality. Most of his 
actions are purposive. Can it be that the Power that 
gave him being is less purposive, less intelligent? 
Indeed, how could a blind system of nature evolve such 
a being as man, who in a thousand ways works with 
specific ends in view? Can water rise higher than its 
source? Can you get a greater out of a lesser? Can 
you get something out of nothing? Can a cosmos rise 
out of chaos? Design connotes intelligence, and in- 
telligence connotes personality, and that means God. 

(4) The Moral Argument. 

This argument for God's existence is based upon 
man's moral nature and the moral order of the world. 

Man is a moral being; that cannot be intelligently 
questioned, for he distinguishes between right and 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 169 

wrong; when he does right, his conscience approves; 
when he does wrong, his conscience condemns. He is 
also placed in the midst of an environment that inte- 
grates with his moral nature, giving him a chance to 
choose between right and wrong and to develop and 
discipline moral character. Hence the world is a moral 
economy correlating with man as a moral agent. 

How do these facts prove the exisence of God, espe- 
cially such a God as the Bible portrays? In this way: 

a. The mutual adaptation of the world as a moral 
arena and of man as a moral agent connotes design, and 
wise design as well ; but we have seen that design con- 
notes intelligence and will, and thus leads to God as the 
Creator. 

b. The moral could not evolve merely by means of 
resident forces from the non-moral; therefore the 
source of the moral regime of the world must be moral; 
which again leads back to God. 

c. Morality can be predicated only of persons, of 
rational personalities ; never of mere things or animals ; 
therefore the Ultimate Ground or source of morality 
must be a rational personality ; which again leads back 
to God. 

No wonder Immanuel Kant, who could not appre- 
ciate the force of the other theistic arguments, was 
convinced of the divine existence by the moral argu- 
ment. His reasoning was as follows: Man's con- 
science feels the power of the moral imperative within 
it and over it, and this so impressively that it cannot 
be evaded; but a moral imperative connotes an objec- 
tive moral law ; and this law can be accounted for only 



170 A System of Christian Evidence 

by a real moral Personality who is the ground, source 
author and administrant. The argument seems to be 
convincing. 

The Bible teaches the doctrine that God exists, that 
He is the source of all good, and hence of moral reality, 
and that He administers the moral law in a moral 
universe ; therefore on this most vital issue the Bible 
and reason agree. 

(5) The Esthetic Argument. 

This argument is based on the presence of beauty 
and sublimity in the universe as an evidence of the 
existence of a personal God. 

There are beauty and sublimity in the universe; 
there is also beauty in the human physique and in the 
works of art. Man has an esthetic faculty by which he 
is able to appreciate and enjoy the beauty about him. 
How does it occur that the beauty of the world and the 
esthetic faculty in man correspond so wonderfully? 
Has it come about merely by a "happen-so"? This is 
not probable; indeed, it seems to be absurd merely to 
suggest the thought. Evidently this agreement came 
about by design ; but, as we have seen, design connotes 
intelligence, and intelligence means personality — which 
once again leads back to God. 

The Bible teaches that God made all the beauty and 
sublimity of the universe. He looked upon His handi- 
work, and pronounced it "good" and "very good." The 
Psalmist breaks out in this rapt language: "The 
heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament 
showeth His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth 
speech and night unto night showeth knowledge" (Ps. 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 171 

19: 1, 2). Christ pointed to the lilies of the field, and 
declared that "Solomon in all His glory was not ar- 
rayed like one of these" (Matt. 6:28, 29). Thus we 
see again that the teaching of the Bible and the conclu- 
sions of reason are in beautiful accord. 

(6) The ontological argument. 2 

This argument for the divine existence is based on 
the fact that the human mind has the necessary con- 
ception of a perfect and absolute Being. The word is 
derived from the Greek (ontos being, and logos, dis- 
course). 

This argument is rather profound, and does not ap- 
peal with convincing force to some minds. However, 
some great thinkers regard it as the most cogent argu- 
ment, bringing all the others to a climax. The writer 
believes that, when properly stated, it is convincing. 
Let us state it as forcefully as we can : Man cannot 
think of the relative without also thinking of the Abso- 
lute, for the one connotes the other; nor can he think 
of the derived without also thinking of the Underived ; 
nor of the dependent without implying the Independ- 
ent; nor of the imperfect without connoting the 
Perfect ; nor of the finite without inferring the Infinite. 
Now observe — if the absolute, underived, independent 
and perfect Being does not exist, then man's necessary 
conceptions, the most profound and fundamental of 
which he is capable, are null and void, and his mind is 
illogical and ineffective in its very constitution. If 
that were true, all our thinking would be inane and 

2. Among the great men who have thought deeply on the Ontological 
Argument and have given it form and force may be mentioned the fol- 
lowing: Plato, Anselm, Descartes, Butler, Cousin, Leibnitz, Sir Wil- 
liam Hamilton, Dorner, Orr and Harris. 



172 A System of Christian Evidence 

futile. Can we believe that? Therefore, if our best 
thinking is valid, the absolute and perfect Being must 
exist; and such a Being must be personal or He would 
not be perfect. Rational personality, be it remembered, 
is the highest and noblest conception of which the 
human mind is capable. 

Let us remember again that the Bible represents 
God as the only perfect, absolute and independent 
Being; so that the Bible and reason again coincide. 



CHAPTER XVII 
THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN THEORIES 
III. ANTI-CHRISTIAN THEORIES. 

1. Atheism and Materialism. 

The first is the negative pole, the second the positive. 
Atheism simply denies God's existence, and makes no 
further assertions. Materialism also denies the divine 
existence, and, in addition, asserts positively that ma- 
terial substance is the only substance that exists, and 
rejects all ideas of a spiritual or psychical entity. 

If this theory is true, the universe must be the out- 
come of chance, of mere fortuity? Then why is the 
world a cosmos instead of a chaos? Why is there the 
reign of law instead of anarchy? How can there be 
marks of intelligence (as we have seen in preceding 
sections) in the product of blind forces? How could 
material substance produce mind with the powers of 
thinking, feeling and willing? How could thought 
evolve out of non-thinking substance by means of 
purely "resident forces"? Can water rise higher than 
its source by mere natural pressure? Can you get 
something out of nothing, a greater out of a lesser, a 
higher out of a lower? Whatever is evolved must 
have been previously involved, and that would imply 
a supreme intelligent Involver. And why do almost 
all men, instead of believing that they are derived from 

173 



174 A System of Christian Evidence 

material substance, believe in a God or supernatural 
beings? Matter surely performs strange exploits, and 
must be a universal deceiver, to make most men be- 
lieve in God if there is no God ! So materialism is a 
most inadequate theory; it fails to account for many 
things, and especially those that are the most worth- 
while. 

Christian theism, on the other hand, is adequate. 
It teaches that both matter and mind are real ; that 
both God and the universe exist ; and in teaching the 
doctrine of a personal, all-wise and all-powerful God 
as Creator, Preserver and Ruler, it assigns an ade- 
quate cause for all the varied phenomena in the 
universe, whether they are low or high in the scale of 
being and character. 

2. Idealism. 

This theory is the direct opposite of materialism ; 
it holds that matter has no existence ; there is no entity 
but mind. 

We hesitate to include this thesis among the anti- 
Christian theories, because we know some philosoph- 
ical idealists who are earnest Christians. We can only 
say that, in our way of thinking, their philosophy is 
not consistent with their faith, and therefore they are 
illogical. Nothing is clearer than that the Bible in- 
tends to teach the objective reality of the material 
cosmos; almost every line from the first to the last 
seems to take that fact for granted. There is nowhere 
the faintest hint to indicate that men only imagine the 
reality of matter, or that matter is only a form of thought 
that God impinges on man's consciousness. If God 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 17 S 

does that, and leads virtually all men to believe that 
the material world is a real entity, then it does seem 
as if God Himself imposes falsehood upon man's 
thinking processes, and the deception is almost uni- 
versal. 

What is the reply to the idealist? (i) It is opposed 
to universal human consciousness, and hence is not 
likely to be true, since we believe we live in a rational 
world ; (2) It makes the world a chimera, a seeming, 
and that gives to human life an atmosphere of unreal- 
ity, which is not salutary; (3) It cannot be practiced 
even by its votaries, who always act as if matter were 
real; it is not profitable to adopt a philosophy by 
which men cannot live; (4) It is too abstruse and 
difficult for practical people, who must always strain 
their thought even to get a dim conception of its 
meaning; (5) If our consciousness deceives us into 
thinking that the world is real when it is not, may it 
not also deceive us when we think of God and of 
right or wrong? So there is danger that this philoso- 
phy will lead into universal doubt and destroy the 
basis of religion and morality. The plain Christian 
view — that the world, God, and human minds are real 
entities — is much the better philosophy. 

3. Deism. 

Deism teaches that God is a personal Being, who 
created the universe, then forsook it and gave it over 
to the control of secondary laws and forces which He 
ordained for that purpose. 

It teaches the transcendence of God, but denies His 
immanence — that is, His presence in the world. It 



176 A System of Christian Evidence 

flourished in England, as has been said previously, in 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was 
infidel respecting the Bible, a bitter opponent of 
Christianity and advocated what is called "The Re- 
J ; gion of Nature," holding that man needs no special 
rivine revelation, such as is given in the Bible, be- 
cause the light of nature and reason is sufficient. 

Reply: (i) It is inconceivable that a good and 
wise God — one who could create this marvelous uni- 
verse — would desert the world which He created, and 
especially His sentient and rational creatures; (2) 
Men cannot long love and respect a God who leaves 
them in their sin and suffering, and goes off on a long 
vacation; (3) As a matter of fact Deism accomplished 
nothing positive for the betterment of humanity, and 
long ago lost its hold on men's minds ; (4) It did not 
succeed in keeping even some of its chief votaries in the 
path of virtue, because it had a constant tendency to 
undermine the basis of morality; (5) It finally de- 
generated into universal skepticism, especially in 
Hume and Gibbon. 

4. Pantheism. 

This is the philosophy that identifies God and the 
world ; the universe is God and God is the universe ; 
God is everything, the "All." 

Today there is a tendency among liberalistic the- 
ologians toward pantheistic views. So much stress is 
laid by them on the immanence of God that they almost 
overlook His transcendence. However, it is not a new 
theory. Hinduism, which existed centuries before 
Christ, is a thorough-going system of pantheism. 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 177 

Note the arguments against this philosophy : ( I ) 
First, it forces matter and mind into one substance, but 
gives no proof of their unity; such man-handling of two 
different entities is neither scientific nor rational; (2) 
It denies personality and intelligence to God; for such 
expressions as "unconscious intelligence" and "uncon- 
scious will" are self-contradictions;. (3) It affords very 
little or no satisfaction to the religious mind, for there 
can be no true communion between man and a non-per- 
sonal something ; (4) It is vague and indeterminate, and 
hence is unsatisfying to the intellect which craves clear 
thought; (5) It is inconsistent in its doctrine of divine 
immanence, because an entity cannot be immanent in it- 
self ; it is itself ; (6) In the form given to pantheism by 
Spinoza no clear conception can be formed of a fun- 
damental substance which has two such attributes as 
thought and extension; (7) It denies personal immortal- 
ity for man, who, when he dies, simply sinks back into the 
All, just as a drop of rain falls into the ocean and is ab- 
sorbed, losing its identity. In Hinduism this is called 
the doctrine of re-absorption. 

How much clearer is the teaching of the Bible about 
God ! It does not confuse God and the universe ; it 
teaches both God's transcendence and immanence; hence 
it is not one-sided. This is the only rational view, because 
it is only a transcendent Being who can be personally 
present everywhere in space. 

5. Positivism. 

Positivism is both a philosophy and a religion, although 
the two are not vitally connected. As a philosophy it pro- 
fesses to deal only with phenomena; only with things 



178 A System of Christian Evidence 

supposed to be known; hence the term "Positivism" — 
things of which we can be positively sure. It scornfully 
rejects all metaphysics. It is agnostical with regard to 
the essence of things; that is, with what are called 
noumena, or things in themselves. It will assert nothing 
about the essence of matter, nor of the soul of man, nor of 
God. True, these may exist, but we do not know 
whether they exist or not ; and if they do, we know noth- 
ing of their essential nature. We know only phenomena 
(outward appearances). Yet, inconsistently, this theory 
seems to be absolutely sure it knows that much ; it knows 
that grass is green but it knows nothing about the grass 
itself ! But how does it know that green is green? 

What shall be said of this philosophy? It is different 
from the phenomenalism of Kant, who taught that our 
minds are so constituted that they give their own forms 
to phenomena, and therefore the noumena may be some- 
thing very different from what men think them to be ; 
just as colored glass would make the objects around us 
look very different from what they are to natural vision. 
Positivism also differs from Idealism in that the latter 
denies the existence of matter entirely, while the former 
simply says that we do not know whether matter exists 
or not. 

We reply : It is true, we see only phenomena, not things 
themselves in their own essence; but we believe that we 
live in a rational world and that our minds are rationally 
framed, and that, therefore, the phenomena which we 
observe do not deceive us, but report the noumena truly 
as far we are capable of comprehending them. Moreover, 
we hold that the noumena must exist, or there could be 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 179 

no phenomena. Should it be said that we have an optical 
illusion in the mirage, we reply that this illusion — like 
others — can be corrected by further investigation, and 
the facts can be ascertained. Even the mirage is a re- 
ality — a real reflection and refraction on the atmosphere 
given off from a real landscape in the vicinity. Were 
there no real landscape, there would be no mirage. The 
Christian believer cannot accept the doctrine that all 
men are afflicted with mental impotency and live in a 
chimerical world. He is a realist of the first order. 

As a religion, Positivism deifies and worships human- 
ity. By humanity it does not mean the whole genus homo, 
but only the best people who have died and whose helpful 
influence is still with us today. It has a cultus of forms 
and ceremonies that are largely borrowed from the 
Roman Catholic Church. 

The founder of this system both in philosophy and re- 
ligion was Auguste Comte, a Frenchman who was born 
in 1798 and died in 1857. After he had established his 
philosophy, he noted that man is "incorrigibly religious," 
and therefore he grafted on his system of religion, which 
has little organic connection with his philosophy. 

What shall be said of this view of religion? In wor- 
shiping humanity, it worships an abstraction. The post- 
mortem influence of the worthy dead is no entity, not 
a concrete something, not a person ; hence this cultus 
fails to meet the real needs of religion. Christians also 
believe in the influence of the beloved and worthy dead 
as the Bible teaches : "He, being dead, yet speaketh" 
(Heb. 11:4), "And their works do follow them" (Rev. 
14:13). But Christians are not such idolaters as to 



180 A System of Christian Evidence 

worship this hallowed influence ; they worship God truly, 
although they gladly receive inspiration from the ex- 
ample of the faithful who have departed (Heb. 12:1). 
Christianity avoids every human cultus that is puerile and 
one-sided. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN THEORIES 
CONTINUED 

III. ANTI-CHRISTIAN THEORIES (continued). 

6. Naturalistic evolution. 1 

This is a philosophy, not a science ; a system of specu- 
lation, not verified knowledge. To define it we would 
say: Naturalistic evolution is that theory which holds 
that all things have been brought to their present status 
by a series of progressive changes, according to certain 
fixed laws, and by means of resident forces. 

It denies the existence of God. One of its chief ex- 
ponents was the late Professor Ernst Haeckel, of Ger- 
many, who averred that "God, freedom and immortality" 
are "the three great buttresses of superstition" which it is 
the business of science to destroy. 

This theory, which is today the most active foe of 
Christianity, is inadequate in many ways : ( I ) It cannot 
account for origins : matter, force, life, plant and animal 
species, sentiency, consciousness, intelligence, conscience 
and will ; nor for the universal belief in God and men's 
moral and spiritual experiences; (2) It is a constant 
effort to get something out of nothing, to get the greater 
out of the less, to get something higher and better out 
of something less and inferior — which is both unscien- 

1. In the Selected Bibliography will be found a list of helpful books 
on evolution. 

181 



182 A System of Christian Evidence 

tific and unphilosophical ; (3) It assumes that spon- 
taneous generation and the transmutation of species have 
taken place in the past, whereas no such phenomena have 
ever been observed and verified ; (4) Its moral influence 
cannot help being baleful, for it lays constant emphasis 
on man's brute origin and "the struggle for existence," 
which tend to make man more and more debased and 
selfish. Surely its moral implications must condemn it 
in the eyes of all Christian people and others who are 
concerned for the highest welfare of the human family. 
This theory reached its climax and practical application 
in Nietzsche's philosophy of "might makes right" and 
"the will to power." 

(7) Theistic evolution. 2 

Naturalistic evolution must be carefully distinguished 
from what is known as theistic evolution, whose inter- 
preters believe in God and teach that evolution is His 
method of working — His modus operandi. Many Chris- 
tian scholars are advocates of this view, and seem to 
think that those who do not accept it are sadly behind 
the times. The author of this work believes that these ex- 
ponents do not use the term "evolution" accurately; they 
give it a meaning that is too elastic. 3 They seem even 

2. Among other good works on this subject are Professor Fairhurst: 
"Theistic Evolution*' (1919); Professor Graebner: "Evolution: An 
Investigation and a Criticism" (1921). 

3. Well are we aware that the term "evolution" is often used to 
designate any kind of progress, and in this sense many good people 
think it has come to stay. However, when it is used in this elastic 
sense, everybody should understand that it is not employed in the 
original scientific sense. See the author's work, "Contending for the 
Faith," Chapter XIV. The author desires to add here that he has no 
disposition to cast any reflections on the sincerity and intelligence of 
those who advocate evolution. Those advocates constantly throw scorn and 
ridicule on men who cannot accept their views, and accuse them of 
"ignorance of science," of dishonesty, of lack of a progressive spirit, 
and of general incompetency. We make no counter accusations. We 
have tried to keep our discussion on a dispassionate basis, and to avoid 
epithet* that would cloud the scientific and theological issues involved. 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 183 

to include creation and miracle in the evolutionary pro- 
cess. That surely is unscientific; it forces a meaning into 
the word that its originators never intended. Evolution is 
progress by slow degress "by means of resident forces" 
(Le Conte). Therefore creation and miracle cannot 
properly be called evolution, for they imply something 
brought into being ex nihilo and the addition of some- 
thing new from without. 

Now, according to the Bible, God uses at least three 
processes : first, creation by which a new entity is brought 
into existence; second, miracle by which He introduces 
a new force to bring in new conditions, such as are not 
possible through natural law; third, the process jof 
gradual development by means of secondary laws and 
forces. All around us we see evidences of the last process. 
In addition to natural processes, the Bible teaches plainly 
that creation and miracles were necessary for the origin 
and preservation of the world. Christian theologians 
ought not, therefore, to introduce confusion into the 
controversy by the misuse of a capital term. Surely 
creation and miracle cannot properly be called evolution. 
To describe the whole method, we would suggest the use 
of at least three terms, creation, miracle and development. 
We prefer the word "development" to the word "evolu- 
tion," because the latter has come to mean almost anything 
and everything, and therefore means nothing. A word 
that has no stabilized meaning is certainly not a good 
scientific term. 

We shall frankly state some serious objections to the 
view that is known as theistic evolution : 

(i) No empirical proofs have yet been furnished 



184 A System of Christian Evidence 

by science that spontaneous generation has ever been 
God's method of bringing living matter out of dead 
matter. Evolutionists themselves admit that the law of 
biogenesis now holds the field. Then why should Chris- 
tian men give up the plain Biblical teaching of special 
creation for an unproved hypothesis? 

(2) Science has not yet proved the theory of the 
transmutation of species ; therefore theology cannot 
safely say that it is God's method. It is not proved by 
geology or biology nor by the experiments of Darwin, 
Mendel and Burbank. Dr. William Bateson recently 
(December, 1921) admitted that science cannot explain 
the origin of species, and that the theory of evolution 
must be accepted "by faith." Then why should any one be 
in a great hurry to cast away the Bible explanation ? 

(3) If evolution is God's method of working, it ought 
to be plainly taught in the Bible. But the world went on 
for centuries, and no one until recent years knew about it. 
The doctrine of creation is clearly taught in Holy Writ : 
also the fact of miracles at crucial epochs in the world's 
history. Why was not evolution taught if it is the divine 
method ? 

(4) If evolution is God's method, it ought to be in 
evidence everywhere today. It ought to show its hand. 
To ask for "time" is merely to beg the question and 
admit that there is no present proof of the theory. What 
law do we see dominant today? The law of the fixity of 
species. It lies writ large on the face of things every- 
where. Any child can see it. But if evolution is the 
dominant law, why does it not show its hand clearly? 
Besides, is not the law of stability of type the right one, 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 185 

the beneficent one? If all things were in a state of flux 
or plasticity, man could not depend on nature, because she 
would not hold true to type. 

(5) Loath as we are to say it, the theory of evolu- 
tion has ever gone hand in hand with infidelity, rational- 
ism, negative Biblical criticism and materialism. In 
modern times philosophic evolution perhaps began with 
Hegel, with his theory of "becoming" and his idea of 
thesis, analysis and synthesis. He was anything but a 
Christian philosopher. His philosophy was adopted by 
the destructive New Testament critics, Baur and Strauss. 
Graf, Wellhausen and Kuenen accepted evolution, and 
based their negative criticism of the Old Testament upon 
it. Darwin, Huxley and Spencer, the founders of so- 
called scientific evolution, were all agnostics. Haeckel, 
the arch-materialist of Germany, and Leuba, the arch- 
advocate of atheism in America, were and are evolu- 
tionists. The Rationalists of England — a purely infidel 
association — professedly base their views on Darwinism. 
A Christian man should be cautious about putting himself 
into such company by adopting their shibboleth, which 
is evolution. A recent book, "The Evolution of the Earth 
and Its Inhabitants" (last printing, 1920), does not con- 
tain the word God ; 4 neither does the popularly written 
handbook, "The A B C of Evolution" (1921). Every- 
thing is put on a purely naturalistic basis. The second 
work particularly aims to account for everything in the 
universe in this way. We quote a paragraph from what 
the author says about "The Origin of Man" (pp. 107, 

4. The word "Creator" does occur once in this book (p. 108), and, 
strangely enough, in a quotation from Darwin's early work (1859), "The 
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." This was before Dar- 
win's theorizing led him into agnosticism, and therefore is a rather belated 
citation. Otherwise we have not been able to find the slightest reference 
to God or to anything supernatural in the book named in the text. 



186 A System of Christian Evidence 

108) : "We came of a remote animal ancestor. What 
Was it like, and how and why did it become man? I 
have said that it is now customary to explain very care- 
fully that our ancestor was not a monkey or an ape. 
I confess that I think this caution overdone. It is a 
concession to the spiritual police. If we had the remains 
of man's ancestors before us, they would almost certainly 
be classed as those of monkeys in the earlier stage and 
as apes in the later. Possibly some of them are actually 
among the existing fossils." 

This book is written in a popular style for the purpose 
of making the theory of evolution plain and simple for 
laymen and young people. And the theory is taught 
everywhere with a cocksiireness that says, "It's all set- 
tled ! No need of further argument !" We have studied 
many works on dogmatic theology of ancient, medieval 
and modern times; but we must confess that this work 
on evolution out-dogmatizes all of them. The author's 
contemptuous reference to "the spiritual police" indicates 
his attitude toward Christianity. It is his only reference 
to anything spiritual. 

(6) Again, candor compels us to say that, when a 
man accepts evolution, even though he prefixes it with 
the word "theistic," he almost always sits loosely on the 
doctrine of the Bible. Many instances might be given. 
Rev. E. Griffith Jones and Canon Barnes both declared 
in favor of evolution, and straightway began to treat the 
Old Testament account of the creation as myth, legend 
and folklore. Canon Barnes averred that, because he 
had accepted the theory of evolution, he could no longer 
believe the Biblical account of creation, nor of the fall 
of man, nor Paul's doctrine that in Adam all died. A 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 187 

number of liberalistic ministers in Columbus, Ohio, just 
a few weeks before this writing, scoffed at the narrative 
of the garden of Eden as a "fairy tale," at the virgin birth 
of Christ, and the vicarious atonement wrought by Him ; 
at the same time they boldly proclaimed their acceptance 
of evolution instead of these Biblical doctrines. These 
data ought to give men pause. 

8. Monism. 

This is the philosophy that reduces everything to one 
substance. Hence it will not tolerate the dualism of 
mind and matter and of God and the universe. 

The term Monism is introduced here only to give the 
student a proper conception of its meaning. There are 
several forms of Monism, all of which have already been 
mentioned and refuted. Spinoza's philosophy of pan- 
theism is monistic, because it reduces everything to one 
substance with its two attributes of thought and exten- 
sion. Idealism is monistic, denying the reality of matter 
and admitting only the reality of mind. Materialism is 
also monistic, holding that the only substance is matter, 
so that the idea of mind and God as separate entities is 
mere delusion. 

Opposed to all monistic conceptions is the Christian 
view of dualism when properly defined, namely, that God 
and the universe are separate entities ; not, however, that 
the universe is eternal, but that it was created ex nihilo 
by the Almighty. Stated concisely and courageously, the 
Christian view is this : before the creation there was Mon- 
ism, God being the only existence; after creation there 
was Dualism; the universe, though made by Him, was 
something different from Him as to essence. This pro- 



188 A System of Christian Evidence 

found view makes God the Sovereign of the Universe, 
transcendent to it, yet immanent in it. What confidence 
this view implants in the believing soul, for it means that 
God will not permit His plans for the high destiny of 
man and the universe to miscarry ! 

9. Agnosticism. 

This theory declares that we do not and cannot know 
whether there is a God or not. 

A few words in refutation: (i) The proofs thus far 
advanced in this section seem to offer satisfying evidence 
of the divine existence; (2) The agnostic surely does not 
know enough about the universe to deny the possibility 
of knowing that there is a God ; that is almost an assump- 
tion of omniscience; (3) Untrue to their name, agnostics 
assume to know a good deal about the "Inscrutable 
Power" that controls the universe. If they know so much 
about it, how can it be "inscrutable"? Said some one to 
Herbert Spencer, the arch agnostic : "You know too much 
about your unknowable God." Dr. James H. Snowden 
puts it acutely: "Such denial of knowledge must deny 
its own denial, and thereby cancel itself. Agnosticism lit- 
erally commits suicide, and then strangely keeps on talk- 
ing." 5 

Much more satisfying is the Christian view: we know 
there is a God ; although we do not know all about Him, 
we know enough for all practical purposes : He comes to 
us through His Word and Spirit, and gives us a real 
sense of His blessed and comforting presence ; He assures 
us of pardon and salvation; He promises that some time 
we shall see Him face to face and know Him as He is. 

5. Quoted from his excellent recent work, "The Personality of God" 
(p. 57). Snowden's whole discussion of this theme is acute. 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 189 

10. The doctrine of a finite God. 

This hypothesis holds that God, though great and pow- 
erful, is finite in power and wisdom. 6 It is a view ad- 
vocated by Hume, J. S. Mill, William James and H. G. 
Wells. They think it helps best to explain the presence 
of evil in the world : God, being finite, could not help it. 
This view, they imagine, exonerates Him from blame. 
And we are here in the world to aid Him in overcoming 
evil, though the advocates of the theory give no assur- 
ance that our combined efforts will bring success. 

Note the refutation: (i) A finite God would some 
time become exhausted in upholding so vast a universe as 
ours, and therefore it would drop into catastrophic ruin ; 
(2) He might also blunder so often as to wreck the uni- 
verse; (3) If He could not prevent evil, He never can 
overcome it, not even with man's help ; for, as He made 
man, man can add nothing to His power. So it is a hope- 
less doctrine morally. 

How superior is the Christian doctrine ! God is infinite 
in all His attributes ; therefore He could create and can 
forever uphold the universe; He permitted evil, because 
He saw it was better to have a moral universe than a 
mere machine filled with automata; but since He per- 
mitted evil, for reasons well known to Himself, He will 
be able in His own good time to overcome it ; then, as the 
Bible teaches, there shall be "new heavens and a new 
earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." This view cer- 
tainly puts fiber and hope into the human soul. "Forever, 
O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven" (Ps. 119:89) ; 

6. Dealt with effectively in Pringle-Pattison's "The Idea of God in 

the Light of Recent Philosophy" (191 7), pp. 324, 401, 405; also Henry 

C. Sheldon: "Pantheistic Dilemmas and Other Essays in Philosophy 
and Religion" (1920), pp. 55, 56, 103, 104, 107-117, 



\ 



190 A System of Christian Evidence 

"Howbeit, the foundation of God standeth sure" (2. Tim. 
2:19). 

11. Pluralism. 

( 1 ) Definition. 

Pluralism is the view that the cosmos is not a universe, 
held together by some unifying force or principle, but is 
made up of disparate parts and essences. 7 

(2) Its advocates. 

William James and H. G. Wells, who also have put 
forward the doctrine of a finite God examined in the 
previous sections, are its exponents. The two doctrines 
seem to have some logical connection. 

(3) Its basis. 

There are some eighty or ninety primary elements in 
the composition of the material world, and science fails 
to reduce them to one element ; indeed, further investiga- 
tion seems to increase the number of primary elements. 
Oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc., remain intact, in spite 
of all laboratory attempts to separate them and convert 
them into one ultimate atom or electron. 

(4) Its error as a philosophy. 

Although there are various irreducable elements in 
material substance, and also the two entities of matter 
and mind which cannot be reduced into one substance, 
yet there must be some unifying principle or power hold- 
ing all things in one system, or the universe would be a 

7. Cf. Pringle-Pattison, ut supra, pp. 183, 184, 315-321, 393-398; 
Snowden, ut supra, pp. 90-92. In favor of Pluralism is William James: 
"A Pluralistic Universe" and "Pragmatism." The word "universe" 
means turned into one (unus, one, and verto, to turn) ; then how can a 
universe be pluralistic? 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 191 

chaos instead of a cosmos. What is it that holds all these 
diversified parts and elements and forces in one unified 
system? The only adequate explanation is the one per- 
sonality of the absolute and omnipotent God. To think 
of it deeply, an ego is the only ultimate unity we know 
anything about; all else is variety and difference. Why 
search elsewhere in some obscure realm for an adequate 
cause ? 

12. Pessimism. 

( i ) Definition. 

Pessimism is the doctrine that the world is a misfor- 
tune or a sad lapse, and therefore an economy of evil and 
sorrow. 

(2) Specimen expressions of pessimists. 
Said Schopenhauer: "This is the worst possible 
world." Hear him again : "Well for those who have no 
conscious existence. The life of the animal is more 
to be envied than that of man; the life of the plant is 
better than that of the fish in the water, or even of the 
oyster on the rock. Nion-being is better than being, and 
unconsciousness is the blessedness of what does exist. 
The best would be if all existence were annihilated." 
Caro made this plaint: "The height of misery is not 
that of being man ; it is, being man, to despise oneself 
sufficiently to regret that one is not an animal." Another 
from Von Hartmann: "If this is not the worst world, 
it is at least worse than none." Professor Clifford, who 
fell into skepticism and atheism, grew quite pessimistic, 
and made this confession : "We have seen the sun shine 
out of an empty heaven to light up a soulless earth ; we 



192 A System of Christian Evidence 

have felt the utter loneliness that the Great Companion is 
dead." Many similar plaints might be given. Centuries 
before Christ, Buddha wailed in the same despairing 
strains, and hence worked out his conception of Nirvana. 

(3) Errors of Pessimism. 

a. It exaggerates the evil and overlooks or minimizes 
the good in the world. 

b. It cares only for temporal and sensuous good, for 
the merely pleasurable, and fails to appreciate moral, 
spiritual and eternal values. It is blind to the moral use 
of discipline and serious tasks. 

c. It becomes daunted in the presence of difficulties 
instead of bravely trying to surmount them and finding 
exhilaration in the effort. To illustrate : the pessimist 
sits down and wails because weeds grow in his garden ; 
whereas he should bestir himself, hoe up the weeds, culti- 
vate and fertilize the soil, plant good seed, and raise a 
crop. 

d. It spells the eclipse of faith, hope and love — that 
splendid triumvirate of Christian virtues. 

e. It is another name for moral anemia. It is given 
up to complaint ; it grows more and more cynical ; it 
abandons itself to annul, and becomes blase. 

g. Many, many times, if not always, this is the pro- 
cess : a young man becomes skeptical ; for a time he feels 
great freedom, boasts about being "unfettered from 
superstition," and scoffs at the "ignorance" of Christian 
believers ; by and by he discovers that, after all, he cannot 
solve life's great problems ; then he falls into agnosticism ; 
having lost faith in God, he can see no kind, wise and 
beneficient rule in the world; then he grows embittered, 



Christian Theism and Opposing Theories 193 

sees more evil than good about him, has no hope of the 
future, cries cynically, "Cui bono?" and so falls into blank 
pessimism. 8 

(4) The contrast of Christian optimism. 

a. It is not so blind as to fail to recognize the evils of 
the world and to regard them as evil. It never calls good 
evil and evil good. 

b. However, Christianity also sees and cherishes 
the good in the world, and believes that it predominates, 
and is stronger than the evil. 

c. Instead of spending valuable time in bemoaning 
the evil and wondering why it has been permitted, it seeks 
to mitigate and reduce it and make the good triumphant. 

d. It sees in the world just as it is an arena for 
heroic conflict ; a school for the discipline of all the sterling 
and brave virtues. 

e. It trusts in God and the good, and is sure of ulti- 
mate victory. It is sustained by faith, hope and love, 
and trusts in the divine promises of immortal release 
and victory (John 14:1-3; Rom. 8:28; 2 Cor. 4:17; 1 
Pet. 1:3-9)- 

8. On pessimism consult the following: Sheldon: "Unbelief in the 
Nineteenth Century," pp. 134-149; Orr: "The Christian View of God and 
the World," pp. 52-56, 66-72, 169-170, 186, 321, 400-402, 467. 



PART IV 
THE DOUBTER AND HIS DIFFICULTIES 



PART IV 
THE DOUBTER AND HIS DIFFICULTIES 



CHAPTER XIX 
HIS DISPOSITION— HIS DIFFICULTIES 

I. HIS DISPOSITION OF MIND. 

1. He should be sincere and open-minded. 

This frame of mind is necessary for ascertaining 
truth in all realms of knowledge and experience. While 
one should not be credulous, one should always be 
receptive and teachable. 

2. He should never ridicule religion. 

Derision indicates a lack of real seriousness. Relig- 
ious belief is too sacred and important for ridicule. 
If it is worth anything, it is worth everything. Neither 
should believers treat doubters with contempt and 
derision. 

3. He should rid himself of mere pride of opinion. 

If he has been proven to be in error, he should be 
humble and frank enough to confess it. That is the 
proof, prima facie, of a desire for the truth and only the 
truth. The like may be said of others, whatever their 
views. 

196 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 197 

4. He should never think that Christian scholars 
are not aware of the difficulties that trouble him. 

Sometimes unbelievers assume a superior air, and 
seem to think that they are the only persons who think. 
That is a mistake. Most of the difficulties heralded by 
skeptics have been known and dealt with again and 
again by Christian scholars. The extensive list of schol- 
arly works in our Selected Bibliography is ample proof 
of this fact. 

5. He should not think it a sign of merit or super- 
iority to doubt. 

It is easy to doubt; most thinking people have their 
doubts. Many who are ardent Christians today passed 
through periods of severe mental and spiritual travail. 
The author of this- volume had this experience, having 
sounded the depths of agnosticism. 

6. He should not think doubt a good thing per se. 

In this world of sin and deception one cannot always 
trust. Sometimes it is one's duty to doubt, or at least 
withhold his confidence. But does not that very fact 
connote an abnormal condition of affairs? If the world 
were a perfect world, and all people were upright and 
trustworthy, there would be perfect confidence every- 
where. Therefore mutual trust connotes the normal 
condition, which proves that, not doubt, but faith is 
good per se. That home is happy where mutual con- 
fidence prevails ; that home is most miserable where 
, suspicion and distrust have crept in between husband 
and wife or parents and children. So, reasoning by 
analogy, we would conclude that faith in God who 



198 A System of Christian Evidence 

rules the world would be the normal status, while lack of 
such faith would be abnormal. 

II. SOME OF THE DOUBTER'S DIFFICULTIES 
AND THEIR SOLUTIONS. 

1. General Remarks. 

The doubter may have real difficulties which he has 
not been able to command the time to resolve. Many 
excellent and scholarly treatises have been written in 
explanation of his enigmas, if he would only take the 
pains to read and examine them with a mind open to 
reaction. In this work we can mention only a few of 
these difficulties, and deal with them only in a concise 
way. 

2. The narrative of creation in Genesis, 

The cosmogony given in Genesis has been a favorite 
object of attack on the part of infidels. Many of them 
laugh it to scorn as childish and unscientific. Perhaps 
every word has been examined to see whether there 
is not some point at which this narrative can be put 
out of accord with the teachings and speculations of 
science. The persistency with which infidels attack 
the Genetical account, and the bitterness which they 
sometimes display, would almost indicate that they do 
not want to believe in a God who created the universe, 
made man in His own image, placed him in the midst 
of a favorable environment, and cared for him both 
before and after his disobedience to the divine com- 
mand. We have often wondered why unbelievers do 
not prefer to have the Biblical record true than false. 

Observe the scientific character of the first chapter 
of Genesis. The first verse describes the creation of 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 199 

the primordial material : "In the beginning God 
created the heavens and the earth." Science never 
describes the origin of matter and force, but simply 
begins with them, or takes them for granted. The 
Bible goes back further, but in doing so, it does not 
contradict science. In some way the original material 
must have come into existence. What could be more 
reasonable than that God, all-wise and all-powerful, 
created it and stamped upon its very constitution order, 
law and rationality? 

It is worthy of note that the writer of Gen. i :i men- 
tions "the heavens" first, then "the earth." In his day 
the old geocentric or Ptolemaic theory of the universe 
prevailed all around him. How did he know what we 
know today so well, that the earth is small compared 
with the rest of the universe? What led him to put 
"the heavens" first? The writer — undoubtedly Moses 
— anticipated Copernicus and Galileo, and at least gave 
us a hint of the heliocentric view. Who inspired him ? 

The second verse describes the original nebulous 
condition of the material thus created : "And the earth 
was unformed and empty (Hebrew, tohu vabohu) ; and 
darkness was upon the face of the deep" (the Hebrew 
for "deep" means the agitated waves). This certainly 
agrees with what many scientists believe to have been 
the first condition of the primitive material in its dark, 
unformed and nebulous condition. Verse three says : 
"And the Spirit of God (Heb., Ruach Elohim) brooded 
over the face of the waters" (nebulae). If the orig- 
inal nebula was in a state of equilibrium, as many scien- 
tists believe, it could never have generated motion by 
resident forces. God, being a psychical being, with 



200 A System of Christian Evidence 

a will or self-determining power, is the only kind of 
an entity that could have initiated motion. Might not 
this initial movement account for the stirring of the 
"ether of space" into vortices or vortex rings, forming 
electrons, atoms and molecules, thereby constituting 
all palpable matter, and setting the whole body in 
circular motion for the division of the mass into the 
various orbs of the universe? Motion would generate 
heat and light; therefore the third verse says: "And 
God said, Let there be light, and there was light." 
Most scientists today hold that the first light of the 
earth was cosmical, not solar. 

Verses 6 to 8 indicate the forming of an expanse (this 
is the true meaning of the Hebrew word raka), or atmos- 
phere, that separates the clouds and vapors above 
from the waters below, leaving the intervening space 
clear for all living creatures, including man. Does 
this not prove design? And it agrees with the teach- 
ing of many of the best scientists. 

Verses 9-1 1 indicate what must have taken place 
some time in the world's geological history, namely, 
the separation of the land and the sea. A recent book 
on science, "The Evolution of the Earth and its In- 
habitants," teaches this fact very clearly. 

Verses 11-13 agree with science that the first forms 
of organic life were vegetables. Note the next verses, 
14-19: after the clouds and vapors had been sufficiently 
dispelled to clarify the atmosphere, the heavenly bodies, 
the sun, moon and stars, appeared — another point of 
harmony between the Bible and good scientific author- 
ity. According to verses 20-23, the lower forms of 
animal life first appeared ; then (verses 24-27) came the 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 201 

higher forms, and last of all man came upon the scene 
to bring the creative era to a climax. Is not this the 
precise order described by the modern sciences of 
astronomy, geology, paleontology and biology? Is 
not the agreement remarkable? How can we account 
for it? Compare the cosmogonies of other nations with 
the rational and scientific account in Genesis. 

It may be said that the Genetical record does not har- 
monize with the theory of evolution, now so much in 
vogue among scientists and would-be scientists. If by 
evolution is meant simply progress, however it is effected, 
then we hold that the Bible does teach progress, as we 
have just seen — progress from the promordial material, 
unformed and void of inhabitants, up through the lower 
forms of matter and life to the apex, man. And that 
much, we believe, science has established on empirical 
principles. However, if by evolution is meant unfolding 
merely by means of resident forces, then we must protest 
that no scientist has yet proved the theory. As far as 
science has verified its data, the Bible is in agreement; 
but when scientists enter the field of speculation and spin 
out unproved hypotheses, we cannot expect God's Book 
to agree with them. 

3. The creation of man and woman. 

The Biblical account has met with much scorn on the 
part of infidel scientists. They seem to think it much 
nobler and much more rational to believe that men grew 
up from protoplasm, ooze, mollusks, reptiles and 
apes (or from the same stock) than that God created 
him in His own image by a direct act ; much more inspir- 
ing to believe that man was born in a jungle than in a gar- 
den; much finer to hold that he was developed as a 



202 A System of Christian Evidence 

brute than created a rational, intelligent and ethical being, 
able to choose between right and wrong and to hold per- 
sonal communion with his Maker. It is difficult to under- 
stand some people's preferences. 

Whatever may be said about the matter, it surely is up- 
lifting and reasonable to believe that an all-wise God 
would make man and woman in the way the Bible 
describes. If He did, then we can understand why God 
would care for His rational creatures, would come to 
their help when they fell into sin and misery, and would 
provide for them an endless destiny of happiness in fel- 
lowship with Himself. Accept the first, second and third 
chapters of Genesis, and the whole Christian system be- 
comes intelligible and consistent. 

So much in general. We hold that the Biblical account 
of the creation of man and woman is rational and scien- 
tific. First, God framed (not bar a, to create, but ya-tzar 
to form) man's body out of the dust (the finest material, 
according to Keil) of the ground. This is scientific, for 
man's body, as we know it today, is composed of pre- 
cisely the same chemical elements as the soil. "Dust thou 
art, to dust returnest." 

Then God breathed into the body of man the breath 
of life, and he became a living soul. This verse agrees 
with verses 26 and 27 of the first chapter, in which it is 
said that God created man in His own image. In the 
act of inbreathing, God created man's psuche, or psychical 
nature ; God is Mind ; man, as to his higher nature, is also 
mind; man was thus made a finite replica of his infinite 
Creator. See how marvelous this is: God is self- 
conscious, can say "I" ; man also. God knows, feels and 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 203 

wills; man also. Could any conception be more uplifting? 
That man was created in the divine image is proved times 
without number by empirical observation, and is there- 
fore scientifically established. If he were not made in 
God's image — that is, were he not like God in some funda- 
mental respects — he could hold no communion with God. 
But he can and does have such communion. Therefore 
the above conclusion. 

Woman was made from a part of man, and in this 
way the solidarity of the human family was established. 
Had she been made otherwise, the human genus would 
have had a dual origin. The best science today advo- 
cates the unity of the human race. Woman was also 
made in the divine image, as is taught in Gen. I '.27 : 
"And God created man in His own image; in the image 
of God created He him ; male and female created He 
them." At the very beginning, therefore, the Bible stamps 
upon woman the same nobility as upon man, and gives 
her an equal place by his side. 

4. Man's fall into sin. 

This part of Scripture (Gen. 3:1-22) has also been the 
object of much ridicule. At the start it should be said 
that the Bible is not responsible for the presence of sin 
and suffering in the world ; they are here in evidence on 
every hand. If the Bible had never been written, we 
would still have this profound and perplexing problem to 
deal with. The Bible simply tries to tell us how sin came 
into the world, and how the world may be saved from its 
defilement and penal consequences. Cast the Bible away, 
and the problem of sin will still be with us, more trouble- 
some and insoluble than ever. 



204 A System of Christian Evidence 

But what is the rationale of the Biblical account of the 
origin of sin ? It is this : God created man a free being. 
If He had not made him a moral agent, capable of choice, 
man would have been a mere automaton, or a machine, 
or a happy animal. If man was a free moral agent, he 
had to have the ability and the opportunity to choose. 
There can be no freedom without a test of freedom. The 
"tree of the knowledge of good and evil" afforded that 
necessary ordeal to establish man's moral character. 
There was nothing originally wrong with man; his 
freedom was not a defect, but his highest enduement ; for 
moral excellence is the highest kind of excellence. The 
skeptic's objection to this regime proves that he can think 
only of pleasure as the highest good ; that is hedonism, 
not a sturdy and exalted ethic. It was better, infinitely 
better, to make man a moral being than a mere automa- 
ton. A moral economy is the highest possible conception. 

In some places today the doctrine is held that sin is 
merely the remains of man's primitive animalism, in- 
herited from his brute ancestry. His fall (if he ever did 
fall) consisted in his yielding to this bestial impulses in- 
stead of choosing the higher way. This theory is un- 
tenable for many reasons, among which we mention 
these: (i) It would make God the author of sin, for 
He must have given to man his animal nature; (2) The 
long process of animal development in man, if he was 
thus evolved, would have proved too strong for him to 
overcome in the first feeble glimmerings of his moral and 
spiritual nature; thus man would not have had a fair 
chance; he would have been foredoomed to fall; (3) 
Animals are not sinful; they act out their true nature ; 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 205 

for instance, there is no venereal disease among animals 
in their natural state, as there is among human beings ; 
(4) To trace sin to mere animalism is superficial eth- 
ically; for sin is not primarily a physical evil, but a 
psychical decision and choice ; to posit sin in the body is 
the old heresy of the Gnostics and Manicheans. The 
Biblical teaching that sin is a psychical state and act is 
much pro founder, and agrees with the testimony of 
conscience. 

Thus the Biblical account of the origin of sin agrees 
with the conclusions of scientific and rational Ethics : 
sin had its origin in the wrong choice of a free 
moral agent. Otherwise it would not be sin. It might be 
misfortune, but it would not be sin in the sense of guilt. 
Our very consciences — if they have not been perverted — 
bear witness that we are responsible for our wrong 
thoughts and deeds. The sin in the Edenic garden did not 
consist in the temptation, or even in the appeal which it 
first made to our first parents ; it consisted solely in their 
cherishing the evil suggestion and yielding to it. 

5. The history of Cain. 

Where did Cain get his wife? This is one of the stock 
questions and jests of infidelity. Answer: The Bible 
often completes a specific narrative, and then goes back 
and picks up the main thread of the history. So in this 
case, Adam and Eve had sons and daughters and perhaps 
even grandchildren long before the story of Cain was 
finished. Josephus even mentions the sons and daughters 
of Adam and Eve before he relates the history of Cain. 
So Cain married one of his relatives. Where else could 



206 A System of Christian Evidence 

any man have gotten a wife in the primeval history of the 
human family, which science tells us had a single origin? 

6. The Noachian deluge. 

Almost all nations and tribes have traditions of a great 
flood that destroyed nearly the whole human family. 
The flood of Noah's time will afford a solid historical 
basis for these traditions. They could hardly have arisen 
without some historical groundwork. The remains of 
ocean life are often found on the tops of high mountains, 
proving that at some time they were submerged. In the 
glacial period, known so well in our geologies, the highest 
mountains were covered with ice. The ark itself has 
been found to have been of the proper dimensions for 
seafaring when speed was no object, but when space and 
safety were the chief purposes. 

Some evangelical scholars contend that the Noachian 
deluge was universal ; others that it was only of sufficient 
extent to destroy the human family, with the exception 
of Noah and his household. Good reasons may be ad- 
duced for both views, and it is not necessary here to 
decide between them. 

7. Israel's crossing of the Red Sea. 

Professor George Frederick Wright, the eminent 
scientist and explorer (now deceased), made a thorough 
investigation of the localities of the exodus, and has 
found that such parting of the waters as the Bible 
describes was possible and probable if God found it ne- 
cessary to perform the miracle to preserve His people 
from destruction. Had He not done so, what would 
have become of His plan of salvation through Christ? 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 207 

The Bible says that God used secondary causes to part 
the waters (Ex. 14:21) : "And Jehovah caused the sea 
to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made 
the sea dry land, and the waters were divided." 



CHAPTER XX 

THE DOUBTER'S DIFFICULTIES CONTINUED 

II. SOME OF THE DOUBTER'S DIFFICULTIES 
(continued). 

8. God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. 

The Bible says several times that Pharoah hardened 
his own heart before it says that God hardened it. Ac- 
cording to immutable laws (which God Himself has es- 
tablished), people's characters do become fixed in evil 
when they continue in sin. Thus it can be said in one 
sense that people harden their own hearts and in another 
that God hardens them. So with Pharaoh. Thus the 
Bible agrees with well-known facts of psychology. 

9. Slaughter of the Canaanites. 

The Bible says that this occurred because "the cup of 
their iniquity was full." The situation morally was the 
same as in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and 
the wicked antediluvians. The Bible never says that God 
destroyed or punished a righteous nation, but only nations 
that had become too corrupt to continue to exist. What 
a warning to nations today! "Righteousness exalteth a 
nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 
14:34); "By the blessing of the upright the city is ex- 
alted ; but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked" 
(Prov. 11 :n) ; "The wicked shall be turned into sheol, 
even all the nations that forget God" (Ps. 9:17). 

208 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 209 

10. Jonah and the whale. 1 

Neither the Hebrew of the Old Testament nor the 
Greek of the New says that this creature was a "whale ;" 
in each case the original word means a "sea-monster." 
Sharks in the Mediterranean Sea can easily swallow a 
man whole, as has been observed in more than one in- 
stance. Even whales have lately been found in the ocean 
with throats of great size. The miracle did not consist in 
the swallowing of the prophet, but in his preservation in 
the monster's stomach. This is no more wonderful than 
many other miracles recorded in the Bible. Objection is 
sometimes made that this incident is grotesque ; but we 
reply that there are a good many grotesque objects in 
nature, which God has created. The performance of the 
miracle may readily be justified as worth while on the 
ground that it saved the great city of Nineveh, and has 
taught men that God will save all people if they repent; 
also, and this is most important, that men should never 
attempt to run away from God's call to service and duty. 
All through subsequent history these great lessons have 
been impressed by this unique and inspired book of Jonah. 

11. The imprecatory Psalms. 

The word "imprecatory" means "invoking evil" or 
punishment. Some of the Psalms seem to breath a some- 
what vindictive spirit toward the writer's enemies. He 
calls down God's judgments upon them, and sometimes 
the personal element seems to be implied in the language 

i. Cf. McGarvey: "Jesus and Jonah;" Wilson: "The Authenticity 
of Jonah," in The Princeton Theological Review," April and July, 
19 18; Keil: "Commentary on the Minor Prophets;" Orelli: "The 
Twelve Minor Prophets;" Kennedy: "The Book of Jonah;" Keyser: 
"Contending for the Faith," Chap. VIII; Sampey: Article on Jonah in 
"The International Standard, Bible Encyclopedia." 



210 A System of Christian Evidence 

employed. These Psalms have been a serious gravamen 
with unbelievers and scoffers. 

What shall be said in reply? First, it is true, a bad 
meaning may be drawn from these expressions if one is 
so disposed, and especially if one, instead of taking into 
account the whole spirit and teaching of the Bible, is in- 
clined to higgle about technical points. But there is a 
larger way of interpreting these passages — a way, too, 
that agrees with the whole analogy of faith in the Holy 
Scriptures. If they are regarded as divinely inspired, they 
express, not the Psalmist's personal resentment, but God's 
righteous reaction against sin. No one could respect a 
God who does not hate and punish sin, which is the cause 
of all evil and suffering. 

12. Apparent discrepancies in the Bible. 2 

Most of them have been successfully explained. The 
trouble is, the skeptics and liberalistic critics pay no at- 
tention to scholarly defenses of the Bible, but go on re- 
peating their stock objections over arid over again. 
The same contradictions that Driver, Cheyne, Bade and 
others herald forth can be found in Paine's "The Age of 
Reason," in the works of the deists and of Voltaire and 
other infidels of past ages. 

However, the more we know of the Hebrew and cog- 
nate languages, of archeology, history and geography in 
ancient times, the more these difficulties disappear. Per- 
haps not all of them have as yet been cleared up, but that 
very fact keeps men constantly studying the Bible with 
deeper interest. Infidels and negative critics should read 

2. In the Selected Bibliography, see Tuck, Torrey, Drawbridge, Win- 
nington-Igram. 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 211 

the works of scholars who have specialized in resolving 
Biblical difficulties. 



13. Why God permits sin and suffering. 3 

v Let it be remembered that the Bible is not the cause of 
sin and suffering. They are here whether the Bible is 
true or not. If the Bible should be utterly discarded by 
everybody, sin and suffering would still remain in the 
world. Whoever or whatever made or evolved the world 
permitted sin and sorrow to come into it and mar it. 

God permitted sin because He did not want to make 
man a mere machine, animal or automaton, but a free 
moral agent. Emerson puts it finely : 

"He who ruleth high and wise, 

Nor pauseth in His plan, 
Will tear the sun out of the skies 
Ere freedom out of man." 

God may permit suffering for one of two reasons : 
First, as a punishment for sin, in which case it is con- 
dign; second, as a discipline for His people: "I will re- 
fine them as silver is refined, and try them as gold is 
tried" (Zech. 13 :g) ; "Every branch that beareth fruit, 
He cleanseth it that it may bring forth more fruit." God 
also promises in the Bible that our reward shall be much 
greater in the future on account of our afflictions here 
(Rom. 8 :i8 ; 2 Cor. 4 117). Such assurances ought to help 
to "justify the ways of God to man." 

3. Cf. Keyser: "A System of General Ethics" pp. 141-147; also 
"A System of Natural Theism," pp. 130-139. 



212 A System of Christian Evidence 

14. Miracles in general. 4 

The supernatural element in the Bible has brought 
against it the opposition of both infidels and rationalists. 

The person who believes in God ought to have no 
trouble in believing that He would perform miracles 
at certain crucial and strategic epochs in the history of 
the world. How else could God clearly make Himself 
known to men ? Why should He make a world and then 
hide Himself in it or behind it ? 

Again, the world could not have created itself, nor 
could it have come by chance, nor could it be eternal. 
Note all the logical and philosophical reasons for these 
statements in the works on Natural Theism cited in our 
bibliography. Hence the world must have come into 
existence by creation, which would have been a wonder- 
ful miracle to begin with. If the cosmos came into exist- 
ence by a miracle, why should miracles never occur 
afterward? And when man fell into sin and peril, why 
would not God come, to his rescue, save him and repair 
the damage done? When a mechanician's machine gets 
out of repair, he proceeds to mend it — if it is worth 
mending. Are men wiser than God? Are they more 
beneficent? To our mind, it is wholly within the bounds 
of reason to believe that God would now and then give a 
special display of His power, personality and love. 

The question is often asked, "Why does not God per- 
form miracles today as He did in Biblical times?" Per- 
haps He does perform miracles today, only in a different 
way, because our needs are different. However, we are 

4. Cf. Wendland's cogent work: "Miracles amd Christianity," trans- 
lated by H. R. Machintosh; also the following authors in the Selected 
Bibliography: Brockingham, D'Arcy, Hitchcock, Lamb, Chri6tlieb. 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 213 

ready to admit that miracles, especially physical miracles, 
are not in evidence today as they were in certain epochs 
of Biblical history. The reason may be that God per- 
forms miracles only at crucial times, and thus is properly 
economical of them for wise purposes. For example, 
after the six creative eras described in the first two chap- 
ters of Genesis, He ceased to perform miracles of crea- 
tion, "rested" from that kind of work (Gen. 2:1-3), and 
proceeded to unfold the world according to its own laws 
under His superintendence. Then a careful reading of 
the Bible as a whole shows that miracles come only at 
certain critical exigencies, and are always followed by 
long periods of development. When His chosen people 
reached an emergency in which His plan of redemption 
(which He had decreed from eternity) was endangered, 
He had to intervene, or else His gracious purpose would 
have been frustrated. 

Then, when the Son of God came out of the infinite 
realm into the realm of time and space, for man's re- 
demption, He performed miracles in order to attest His 
divine commission, and to do good to suffering people 
around Him, thus revealing His character as Lover, Lord 
and Saviour. It was reasonable, too, that He should 
meet the spiritual adversaries of mankind in the open 
arena, in order to prove His complete mastery over them. 
This thought may suggest why there were demoniacs in 
the days of our Lord here on earth. However, having 
established His teaching among His disciples, having 
planted the seed of the Gospel, having laid the founda- 
tions of His kingdom, He retired again into the invisible 
realm and poured out His Spirit upon His Church. As 
soon as the Church, was fully established by His inspired 



214 A System of Christian Evidence 

apostles, and the spiritual dispensation was fully inaugu- 
rated, outward wonders naturally ceased, and men be- 
came convicted, convinced and converted through the 
inner power and witness of the Holy Spirit, in connection 
with the inspired word of God. 

Why should God perform miracles now-a-days at every 
skeptic's beck? All who are willing may receive the 
inner assurance of truth and salvation. Is not testimony 
within the soul as convincing as the testimony of the 
outer senses? Those who demand physical wonders in 
this dispensation of the Holy Ghost simply advertise 
their lack of spiritual insight and experience. The 
present dispensation of the Spirit will in all probability 
continue until the next epoch in God's program, which 
will doubtless be Christ's second advent and the final 
judgment. 

Moreover, if miracles were constantly performed, 
they would cease to be miracles, and thus there would 
be no regular and reliable order of things. If God 
would perform miracles for one man, He would have 
to do so for all the rest. That would make a strange 
world indeed. There is a wise frugality of miracles in 
God's program, and we are glad it is so. 

15. Why the Bible is not perfectly plain and simple. 

We reply with other relevant questions : Why is not 
nature perfectly plain and simple? Why are not 
physical science, mathematicss, psychology and philos- 
ophy perfectly simple and plain? The God of the Bible 
acts very much like the God of nature and reason. Only 
the physical and mental sluggard wants a perfectly sim-' 
pie and easy world. 



The Doubter and His Difficulties 215 

Then, too, if the Bible were like a primer, it would 
have been outgrown and obsolete long ago. People do 
not keep on studying the primary readers of their child- 
hood. If they preserve them at all, they are only relics 
and curios. In some ways the Bible is plain enough, so 
"plain that wayfaring men, though fools, need not err 
therein" (Isa. 35:8). In other ways it is very deep, just 
like nature, and thus keeps us continually interested in 
sounding its profound meanings and practicing its chal- 
lenging injunctions. 



PART V 
THE FAILURE OF INFIDELITY 



PART V 
THE FAILURE OF INFIDELITY 



CHAPTER XXI 



GENERAL OBSERVATIONS— SOME INFIDEL 
ACHIEVEMENTS 

I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 

1. Infidelity ever aggressive and critical. 

Infidelity has been chiefly noted for its attacks on 
Chrstianity. It has ever been the main aggressor. 
This has put the Christian apologist constantly on the 
defensive, which position is always more or less of a 
disadvantage. Surely the Christian advocate has a 
right at times to change the mode of warfare, and to 
carry on an aggressive campaign ; as it were, invade 
the enemy's territory. Infidelity has been in the world 
a long time, ever since the unbelieving Jews and 
Romans opposed and crucified Christ; ever since the 
days of Celcus, Lucian, Hierocles and Porphyry. 

2. It must now be asked to make good. 

Now, since it is a historic movement, the Christian 
has a perfect right to ask what infidelity has done for 
the betterment of the world and the comfort of human 
hearts. How many men and women has it rescued 

218 



The Failure of Infidelity 219 

from sin and transformed in life and character? How 
many beneficient institutions has it built, and how 
many is it maintaining today? Where are the col- 
leges and universities of organized infidelity in this 
country and other countries? Where are its great 
works of art, architecture, music and poetry? Or has 
it been so busy finding flaws with the Bible, Christianity 
and the Christian Church that it has had no time or 
disposition to build enduring and constructive monu- 
ments to its wisdom and altruistic spirit? A critic 
invites criticism of himself? It is to be feared that 
when infidelity is challenged and put on the defensive, 
and is asked to make a showing of its achievements, 
it will be able to make a very feeble apology for itself. 
It will be our duty — not a pleasant one — to point out 
the weaknesses of infidelity. 

However, before we proceed further with this thesis, 
we must, in perfect fairness, speak of some things that 
unbelievers have done as individuals. 

II. POSITIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF IN- 
FIDELS. 

1. In the field of literature. 

It would not be true to say that individual unbe- 
lievers have made no contributions that are worth 
while to the world's knowledge. In an organized 
capacity they have done little; for they seem to lack 
the quality of team work. But here and there an 
individual has done things that are worthy of recog- 
nition. 

Lucretius, of the first century of the Christian era, 
wrote a didactic poem in six books, entitled "De Rerum 



220 A System of Christian Evidence 

Natura" ("Concerning the Nature of Things"), in 
which he set forth the cosmical principles of the Epi- 
curean philosophy. For its time it displayed great 
knowledge of nature, was expressed in forcible lan- 
guage, and evinced some originality of imagination. 
But even here, much as we might like to give unquali- 
fied praise, it must be said that the work was thor- 
oughly materialistic, and was intended to destroy faith 
in supernatural beings. No one has ever been rescued 
from sin and misery by this work. The work em- 
bodied no high moral principles and ideals. 

The French infidels of Voltaire's day produced a 
great work called "The French Encyclopedia" (which 
we have previously noticed), in which they gathered 
vast knowledge for their day; and much of it was true 
and useful. But it was honey-combed with materialism 
and religious negation, so that is was more destructive 
than constructive, especially in philosophy and relig- 
ion. Whatever else may be said of the work, it con- 
tained little that was morally uplifting. 

All of us are ready to acknowledge the worth of 
the writing of Hume, Gibbon and Hobbes, the first 
two in their histories of England and Rome respec- 
tively, and the last in his "Leviathan," a philosophical 
w,ork of some depth. But even these men, profound as 
they were, lacked something to give the world moral 
incentive. They did much, too, to negative faith in 
the foundations of morality and religion. 

In the domain of statesmanship Thomas Paine wrote 
some books that, no doubt, contributed a good deal to 
the independence of the United States. For this reason 
Americans remember him with gratitude. His works 



The Failure of Infidelity 221 

are read very little now-a-days, but at one time they 
exerted a powerful influence. Their titles are "Com- 
mon Sense," "The Crisis" and "The Rights of Man," 
all which struck a high note for human freedom. How- 
ever, Paine destroyed almost all his influence and lost 
nearly all his friends by assaulting, in a most malig- 
nant spirit, the chief bulwark of our American liberty 
and civilization — the Christian religion. Besides, his 
conduct was so erratic that he could not retain his 
friends. 

John Stuart Mill, a rationalist, though profound and 
brilliant, was not helpful along the line of constructive 
thought and moral stimulus. 

(2) In the field of physical science and invention. 

In this domain some agnostics have made more or 
less notable contributions. In some ways Darwin, 
Huxley and Spencer added to our knowledge of 
science. As long as they remained in the empirical 
realm, they were, no doubt, fairly safe guides. But 
when they entered the field of philosophical specula- 
tion, as they so frequently did, they went far astray, 
and have imposed upon the world a naturalistic theory 
that has done much to undermine morality and religion, 
to lower men's ideals ,and to make them of the earth, 
earthy. With many people the idea of man's brute 
origin has taken the place of the higher conception 
that man was created in the image of God. Thus we 
cannot help feeling that the work of these great agnos- 
tics was much more negative than positive. 

It is a sad thing to have to say that Thomas A. 
Edison has joined the unbelievers — really the mater- 



222 A System of Christian Evidence 

ialists — in late years, teaching that atoms have men- 
tality, and that when they come together in organic 
relation in the human brain, they form the human 
mind, but when they are dissolved, the human soul is 
also dispersed. Thus personal, conscious immortality 
for man is denied. His constructive work lies in the 
field of electrical discovery and invention. Here he 
has accomplished wonders, and has contributed much 
to human welfare on the physical and earthly side ; 
perhaps some, too, on the intellectual and esthetic 
side. If he would put his influence and talents on 
the side of moral and spiritual construction, how much 
good of the highest kind he might achieve ! 

Thus we have tried to be fair by acknowledging the 
positive work that infidels and agnostics have done 
along certain lines. This work they have done as inde- 
pendent individuals. In pointing out, as we shall do 
next, the shortcomings of infidelity we refer to its 
influence and work as an organized force. This is fair, 
for all along we have been treating Christianity and 
the total teaching and power of the Bible in this 
organic way, and have not picked out here and there 
mere individuals. 



CHAPTER XXII 
SHORTCOMINGS OF INFIDELITY 

III. SHORTCOMINGS OF INFIDELITY. 

1. It builds no enduring institutions. 

Where are its colleges, its hospitals, its constructive 
works? The Christian religion, founded solely on the 
Bible, has built many colleges and other institutions 
of higher education; they dot the land from ocean to 
ocean. Where have the organized free-thinkers a first- 
class college in all this country? Christians have 
erected many temples at great cost and sacrifice for 
the worship of God and the promulgation of Christian 
principles. Infidelity has scarcely a respectable hall 
in the country. It is much more destructive than con- 
structive. 

2. It creates no great and helpful literature. 

Some erratic works of genius have been produced 
by men of skeptical tendencies, but few that have 
really been a moral uplift and inspiration to the race. 
Thousands of people have been converted, and lifted 
from the ways of sin, through Bunyan's Pilgrim's 
Progress, Spurgeon's sermons, Krummacher's "The 
Suffering Savior," and Jerry McAulley's Water Street 
Mission; how many people have been transformed from 
bad people to upright people through the writings of 
Celsus, Porphyry, Newport, Voltaire, Paine and Brad- 

223 



224 A System of Christian Evidence 

laugh? We must ask them to bring forward their 
"twice-born men." 

3. It has produced no great works of art. 

Most of these have been painted or chiselled by 
believers ; few, if any, by pronounced infidels. It is 
true, there is a heathen or classical art, like that of the 
Greeks and the Romans ; but even this has almost all 
been produced in the interest of religion — at least, all 
that is of abiding worth. Nor has unbelief erected any 
great works of architecture. On the other hand, note 
the great churches and cathedrals of Christian people. 
Why are Christian people so much more in earnest 
than infidels? Because they have something positive 
to believe and to which to cling. 

And infidelity has failed to creat any great and 
inspiring music — no hymns, no glorias, no oratorios. 
There are no Handels, Haydns and Beethovens in the 
ranks of boasting infidelity. It is chiefly iconoclastic. 

4. It raises doubts, but solves no problems. 

Suppose that unbelief should cause universal rejec- 
tion of the Bible, would that solve a single deep and 
vital problem of the human soul? Look at some of 
these problems : What is the origin of the universe, 
of man, of sin and evil ? What is the reason of suffer- 
ing? What is matter in its elemental essence? What 
is mind? How are mind and matter correlated in the 
human brain? Is man immortal? What comes after 
death? 

These are serious, yes, they are solemn and vital 
questions. They are questions of the intellect and of 



The Failure of Infidelity 225 

the heart. They will not down. Should an unbeliever 
assert that they are useless questions, his statement 
would prove, ipso facto, that he has not an earnest and 
profound mind, but thinks and feels superficially. Now 
go over the above interrogations again : will any of 
them be answered by repudiating Christianity? Not 
one. They will remain in all their blank baldness. 

But let us put the matter positively ; negation is 
most distressing : If you accept Christianity, you have 
the solution of all your problems now, or the promise 
of their solution by and by. Note the inspiriting 
promise : "Now we see through a glass darkly ; but 
then face to face." That means direct vision of all 
reality. Here is another assurance of the same in- 
vigorating character : "Beloved, it doth not yet appear 
what we shall be ; but we know that, when He shall 
appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as 
He is" (i John 3 \2). Again this means perfect beatific 
vision. What can infidelity offer in the place of these 
assurances? Nothing; it is not constructive; it is 
destructive. 

5. Its doctrine of man is one-sided and inadequate. 

It makes man a "torso" — that is, it treats him as 
if he were only physical, or, at most, only physical 
and intellectual, and overlooks or disregards the high- 
est and noblest part of his being, namely, his spiritual 
faculty, the religious sense, with which he is allied to 
God. Both its anthropology and psychology are de- 
fective. Not so with the Bible, which all-sidedly 
teaches that man is "body, soul and spirit," and de- 
clares that "godliness is profitable unto all things, 



226 A System of Christian Evidence 

having promise of the life that now is, and of that 
which is to come" (i Tim. 4:8). 

At this point we cannot help putting in contrast 
with the clear and bracing doctrines of the Bible, the 
following paragraph from a modern apostle of un- 
belief, Mr. H. G. Wells. Perhaps his mind has under- 
gone a change in recent years. If so, the quotation will 
be a fair exhibit of the state of a doubter's mind while 
he is in the agnostical frame. Some years ago he 
wrote : 

"I do not believe that I have any personal immor- 
tality. I am part of an immortality, perhaps, but that 
is different. I am not the continuing thing. I am 
personally an experimental, incidental. I feel I have 
to do something, a number of things no one else could 
do, and then I am finished, and finished altogether. 
Then my substance returns to the common lot. I am 
a temporary enclosure for a temporary purpose: that 
served, my skull and teeth, my idiosyncrasy and desire, 
will disperse, I believe, like the timbers of a booth 
after a fair." 

We hope Mr. Wells has changed his views since 
the foregoing was written. It is pitiful to believe that 
any human being could entertain so dismal a philos- 
ophy. What would become of the world if all people 
were to fall into such complete materialism? Well 
might we ask of it all, Cui bono? 

6. It lacks moral dynamic. 

Knowing nothing of the regeneration and recon- 
struction of human nature by divine grace, it simply 
leaves man to struggle with sin and suffering in his 
innately weak and depraved condition. It even rejects, 



The Failure of Infidelity 227 

willfully or otherwise, the help that God proffers in 
the contest. It destroys faith, and gives nothing 
assuring in its stead. It robs man of the hope of 
immortality, and provides no substitute. It derides 
the plan of salvation, but has no antidote for sin. 
Morally and spiritually it has and knows no remedial 
system for the sickness of the soul. In contrast note 
that Christianity has a remedy for the ills of life, and 
one that is effective when truly applied ; it is not a mere 
nostrum, but a specific. 

7. In its extreme forms it saps the foundations of 
morality. 1 

In this case we refer to materialists, who deny the 
existence of God. It should be borne in mind that 
not all infidels are atheists. Speaking now of material- 
ism, that crass philosophy obscures, if it does not 
repudiate, moral distinctions. If there is no God, 
where is there any ground of right? Morality can be 
predicated only of rational personalities ; then the 
ultimate ground of right must be a Person ; if it is not, 
there is no morality. Says Goldwin Smith : "The 
denial of the existence of God and of a future state is. 
in a word, the dethronement of conscience." 

It is true, many unbelievers do not go so far as to 
deny the existence of God, but most of them relegate 
Him so far out of their lives and thoughts as to render 
His influence upon them negligible. Hence they im- 
peril the foundations of morality. Often they are 
decent citizens and affable neighbors, and even kind- 

i. It would be worth while to read in this connection Bishop 
Home's "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures," Vol. 
I, pp. 22-26, on the moral principles, teaching and lives of the leading 
unbelievers of his times. 



228 A System of Christian Evidence 

hearted to the needy and suffering; but they seldom 
live great and inspiring lives. Conventional morality 
is all they can claim. Christianity requires inner 
Tightness with God, who sees the heart and knows 
the motives. "Hereby we know that we are of the 
truth, and shall assure our heart before Him, because, 
if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our 
heart, and knoweth all things" (i John 3:1, 20). 

8. A parallel and contrast. 

Christianity Unbelief 

Gives assurance of truth. Fills with uncertainty. 

Knows and loves God. Is agnostic regarding God. 

Recognizes sin and its de- Ignores or minimizes sin. 

filement. 

Offers and confers salva- Is negative and powerless. 

tion. 

Inculcates the highest Often lowers the moral 

morality. standard. 
Gives moral dynamic Leaves man in his weak- 
through divine grace. ness. 
Is constructive in vital Is negative and destruc- 

concerns. tive. 

Gives comfort in sorrow. Affords no comfort. 

Gives joy and triumph in No victory, but often fear. 

death. 

Gives assurance of im- Is nihilistic or agnostic. 

mortality. 

Promises ne w heavens Offers even no conjecture. 

and a new earth. 

Promises final solution of Leaves all a blank. 

all problems. 



The Failure of Infidelity 229 

Striking a balance between the above columns, 
which side offers the weightier reasons for acceptance? 
Christianity is a system of position; unbelief a jumble 
of negation. Do not let any man tear down your 
house until you are sure he can erect a better one 
in its stead. Do not let any man destroy your Christian 
faith and hope until he has something better to put 
in their place. "Prove all things ; hold fast that which 
is good" (i Thess. 5:21). 

The author has refrained from applying epithets to 
unbelievers ; he casts no reflections on their honesty, mor- 
ality or intelligence. He is well aware that they accuse 
Christian people of almost everything that is dishonorable 
and stupid. He declines to follow their example in this 
respect. Throughout this work he has sought to be as 
gracious as possible, and to convince and not abuse. He 
hopes and prays that he has succeeded ; if he has failed, 
he has failed trying. 



230 A System of Christian Evidence 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Many excellent books on Christian Apologetics have 
been published. The following list may seem formidable, 
but it does not profess to be exhaustive. Our selection 
is not meant to discriminate against others that are not 
listed here ; those that are omitted may be as worthy as 
these. 

Some works not here included may be found in the 
list published in the author's "Contending for the Faith" 
(pp. 334-346) ; also in W. H. Griffith Thomas's brochure, 
"Books That Stand for the Faith," issued by The Sunday 
School Times Company, Philalelphia, Pa. 

The roster here published is intended to guide those 
who may wish to carry their investigations further. The 
footnotes in the text are intended for the same purpose. 
Another reason for publishing so large a list is to impress 
upon believers and unbelievers alike the fact — a fact all 
should note — that the evangelical faith has not lacked for 
competent defenders all through the years. How many 
unbelievers and liberalists have read these scholarly 
works, or even a few of them? Men who pose as scholars 
and fair-minded persons should read books on both sides 
of the question. 

Of course, some of the works here named are quite 
old, and a number of them out of print, but perhaps 
second-hand copies of the most valuable ones may be 
secured. But we have also tried to bring the list up to 
date, even up to the present year of 1922. 

In order to be as fair as possible, we give below in their 
proper place a brief list of "Liberal Books." These books 
are very cogent in argument and appeal in some ways, 



Selected Bibliography 231 

and may be read by an intelligent person with much 
profit; but, according to our view, the strength of the 
presentation is sadly marred because the authors yield 
too much and too easily to the modern rationalistic 
Zeigeist and the dismembering Biblical criticism. Dr. 
Charles Harris in his book, "Pro Fide," is an example. 
We have never read more cogent arguments for the divine 
existence than are presented in its early chapters; but 
when he comes to deal with the Bible, he weakens in the 
presence of what he seems to accept for "modern schol- 
arship." 

GENERAL APOLOGIES 

Auberlen, C. A.: "The Divine Revelation: An Essay 

in Defense of the Faith." 
Cairns, D. S. : "The Reasonableness of the Christian 

Faith." 
Christlieb, T. : "Modern Doubt and Christian Belief." 
Darling, C. D. : "Doubters and Their Doubts." 
Ebrard, J. H. A. : "Christian Apologetics, or, The Sci- 
entific Vindication of Christianity." 3 Vols. 
Fairbairn, A. M. : "The Philosophy of the Christian 

Religion." 
Fisher, G. P. : "The Grounds of Theistic and Christian 

Belief." 
Frank, F. H. : "A System of Christian Certainty." 
Gibson, J. M. : "The Inspiration and Authority of Holy 

Scripture." 
Griffinhoofe, C. G. : "Helps Towards Belief in the 

Christian Faith." 
Hopkins, M. : "Evidences of Christianity" (1846; ran 

into the twenty-fifth edition). 



232 A System of Christian Evidence 

Horsch, J. : "Modern Religious Liberalism : The De- 
structiveness and Irrationality of the New Theology" 
(1921). 

Ingram, A. T. W. (Lord Bishop of London) : "Reas- 
ons for Faith and Other Contributions to Christian Evi- 
dence" (1910-1914). 

Keyser, L. S. : "Contending for the Faith: Essays in 
Constructive Criticism and Positive Apologetics" 
(1920). 

La Touche, E. D. : "Christian Certitude." 

Lindrerg, C. E. : "Apologetics : A System of Christian 
Evidence" (1917). 

Loraince, N. : "The Battle of Belief : A Review of the 
Present Conflict" (fourth edition, 1911). 

Luthardt, C. E. : "Fundamental, Moral and Saving 
Truths of Christianity" (3 Vols.). 

McGarvey, J. W. : "Evidences of Christianity" (1912). 

Micou, R. W. : "Basic Ideas in Religion, or Apologetic 
Theism" (1916). 

Mullins, E. Y. : "Why is Christianity True? Christian 
Evidences." 

Orr, J. : "The Christian View of God and the World." 

Pierson, A. T.: "Many Infallible Proofs;" "The In- 
spired Word." 

Rishell, W. R. : "The Foundations of the Christian 
Faith" (1899). 

Stearns, L. F. : "The Evidence of Christian Exper- 
ience." 

Sweet, L. M. : "The Verification of Christianity" 
(1920). 

Tisdall, W. St. C. : "Religio Critici: Chapters on 
Great Themes." 



Selected Bibliography 233 

Turton, W. H.: "The Truth of Christianity" (ninth 
edition, 1919). 

Wright, G. F. : "Scientific Aspects of Christian Evi- 
dences." 

GOOD HANDBOOKS 

Fisher, G. P. : "Manual of Christian Evidences." 
Kennedy, J. : "A Popular Handbook of Christian Evi- 
dences" (three volumes in one). 
Robinson, E. G. : "Christian Evidences." 
Row, C. A. : "A Manual of Christian Evidences." 
Stewart, A. : "Handbook of Christian Evidences." 
Stump, J. : "Bible Teachings." 
Wells, A. R. : "Why We Believe the Bible." 

SPECIAL APOLOGIES 

Barry, G. D. : "The Inspiration and Authority of the 

Holy Scripture" (1919). 
Beecher, W. J. : "The Prophets and the Promise." 
Begbie, H. : "The Proof of God" (1914). 
Birks, T. R. : "Horae Evangelicae : Internal Evidence 

of the Gospel History." 
Blanchard, C. A. : "Visions and Voices, or, Who 

Wrote the Bible?" (191 7.) 
Brockingham, A. A. : "Old Testament Miracles in the 

Light of the Gospel." 
Brookes, J. G. : "God Spake all These Words." 
Burrell, D. J.: "Why I Believe the Bible" (1917). 
D'Arcy, C. F. : "Christianity and the Supernatural" 

(1909). 
Dorchester, D. : "Christianity Vindicated by Its Ene- 



234 A System of Christian Evidence 

mies;" "Concessions of Liberalists to Orthodoxy." 

Drawbridge, C. L. : "Common Objections to Christian - 
ity;" "Popular Attacks on Christianity" (fifth thous- 
and, 1914). 

Ellicott, C. J. : "Modern Unbelief : Its Principles and 
Characteristics." 

Faulkner, J. A. : "Modernism and the Christian Faith" 
(1921). 

Fielder, T. : "The Truth of the Bible" (1912). 

Fitchett, W. H.: "The Beliefs of Unbelief" (1907). 

Gregg, D. : "Facts That Call for Faith." 

Gray, J. A. : "Primers of the Faith." 

Heagle, D. : "The Bremen Lectures on Great Religious 
Questions of the Day" (translated from the German). 

Henslow, G. : "Present-day Rationalism Critically Ex- 
amined." 

Hitchcock, F. R. M. : "The Present Controversy on 
the Gospel Miracles" (1915). 

Johnson, H. : "Christianity's Challenge." 

Lafann, P. : "Letters of Jews to Voltaire" (translated 
into English; 1845). 

Lewis, H. : "Modern Rationalism as Seen at Work in 
Its Biographies" (1913). 

MacArthur, R. S.: "The Old Book and the Old 
Faith." 

Mauro, P.: "The World and Its God" (third revised 
edition, 191 7). 

McClure, E. : "Modern Substitutes for Traditional 
Christianity" (1913). 

McPherson, G. W. : "The Crisis in Church and Col- 
lege" (1919); "The Modern Conflict over the Bible" 
(1919). 



Selected Bibliography 235 

Mozley, J. B. : "Ruling Ideas in Early Ages : Lectures 

on the Old Testament." 
Muir, P. M. : "Modern Substitutes for Christianity" 

(second edition, 1912). 
Mullins, E. Y. : "Freedom and Authority in Religion" 

(1913). 

Orr, James : "Revelation and Inspiration." 

Ovenden, C. T.: "To Whom Shall We Go? An Ex- 
amination of Some Difficulties Presented by Unbelief." 

Paul, J. : "What is New Theology?" (1921). 

Pink, A. W. : "The Divine Inspiration of the Bible" 
(1917) ; "Why Four Gospels?" (1921). 

Quackenbos, J. D. : "Enemies and Evidences of Chris- 
tianity" (second printing, 1909). 

Riley, W. B. : "The Menace of Modernism" (1917). 

Saphir, A.: "The Divine Unity of Scripture;" "Christ 
and the Scripture." 

Shebbeare, C. J. : "Religion in an Age of Doubt." 

Steel, S. A.: "The Modern Theory of the Bible" 

Stuart, M. : "The Bible True to Itself." 

Stubb, J. A. O. : "Verbal Inspiration" (1913). 

Sturge, M. C. : "Theosophy and Christianity" (1918). 
(1921). 

Swete, H. B.: "The Apostles' Creed: Its Relation to 
Primitive Christianity" (1908). 

Tisdall, W. St. C. : "Christianity and Other Faiths." 

Townsend, L. T. : "Adam and Eve : History or Myth ?" 
"The Deluge: History or Myth?" "The Stars Not In- 
habited" (1914). 

Wace, H. : "Christianity and Agnosticism." 

Wace, H., and Others: "Creative Christianity" 
(1921). 



236 A System of Christian Evidence 

Watson, F. : "Defenders of the Faith : The Christian 
Apologists of the Second and Third Centuries" (fifth 
edition, 1899). 

BIBLICAL CRITICISM 

Baxter, W. L. : "Sanctuary and Sacrifice." 

Beattie, F. R. : "Radical Criticism : An Exposition and 
Examination." 

Beecher, W. J.: "Reasonable Biblical Criticism" (1911). 

Bissell, E. C. : "The Petateuch : Its Origin and Struc- 
ture." 
• Burns, W. H.: "The Higher Critic's Bible or God's 
Bible" (1904). 

Burrell, D. J. : "The Teaching of Jesus Christ Con- 
cerning the Scriptures." 

Cave, A. : "The Inspiration of the Old Testament In- 
ductively Considered." 

Cooke, R. J. : "The Incarnation and Recent Criticism" 
(1907). 

Dale, R. W. : "The Living Christ and the Four Gos- 
pels" (1905). 

Davis, J. D. : "A Dictionary of the Bible" (third edi- 
tion, 191 1 ; see isagogical articles). 

Ellicott, C. J. : "Christus Comprobator : The Testi- 
mony of Christ to the Old Testament." 

Finn, A. H. : "The Unity of the Pentateuch : An Ex- 
amination of the Higher Critical Theory as to the Com- 
posite Nature of the Pentateuch" (1914). 

Green, W. H.: "Moses and the Prophets" (1883); 
"The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch" (1895); 
"The Unity of the Book of Genesis" (1895) ; "General 
Introduction to the Old Testament" (1898). 



Selected Bibliography 237 

Griffiths, J. S. : "The Problem of Deuteronomy" 

(1911). 
Hengstenberg, E. W. : "Dissertations on the Genuine- 
ness of the Pentateuch (1847). 
Johnson, F. : "The Quotations of the New Testament 

from the Old" (1895). 
Johnston, H. A. : "Biblical Criticism and the Average 

Man" (1902). 
Keil, K. T. : "Historico-Critical Introduction to the Old 

Testament." 
Kennedy, J. : "Old Testament Criticism and the Rights 

of the Unlearned." 
Knowling, R. J. : "Literary Criticism of the New Tes- 

ament" (1907). 
Leathes, S. : "The Law and the Prophets ;" "Claims of 

the Old Testament." 
Machen, J. G. : "The Origin of Paul's Religion" 

(1921). 
McGarvey, J. W. : "The Authorship of the Book of 

Deuteronomy;" "Short Essays on Biblical Criticism" 

(1910). 
McKim, R. H.: "The Problem of the Pentateuch" 

(1906). 

Moeller, W. : "Are the Critics Right ?" 
Munroe, J. I. : "The Samaritan Pentateuch and Mod- 
ern Criticism" (1911). 

Nicoll, W. R. : "The Church's One Foundation : Christ 
and Recent Criticism." 

Noesgen, C. A.: "The New Testament and the Penta- 
teuch." 

Orr, J.: "The Problem of the Pentateuch" (1905). 



238 A System of Christian Evidence 

Orr, J. (editor) : "The International Standard Bible 

Encyclopedia" (1915; the critical articles are of great 

value). 
Raven, J. H. : "Old Testament Introduction, General 

and Special." 
Redpath, H. A. : "Modern Criticism of the Book of 

Genesis" (second edition, 1906). 
Reich, E. : "The Failure of the Higher Criticism of the 

Bible (1905). 
Robertson, A. T. : "Luke the Historian in the Light of 

Research" (1920); "Paul the Interpreter of Christ" 

(1921). 
Robertson, J. : "The Early Religion of Israel," 2 Vols. 
Robinson, G. L. : "The Book of Isaiah" (1911); also 

his article on Isaiah in "The International Standard 

Bible Encyclopedia." 
Rouse, C. H. : "Old Testament Criticism in New Testa- 
ment Light." 
Spencer, F. E. : "Did Moses Write the Pentateuch After 

All?" (1901). 
Stuart, T. M. : "Divine Inspiration Versus the Docu- 
mentary Theory of the Higher Criticism." 
Thomas, J. : "The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch." 
Thorburn, T. J. : "The Mythical Interpretation of the 

Gospels" (1916). 
Thirtle, J. W. : "Old Testament Problems." 
Townsend, J. T. : "The Story of Jonah and Higher 

Criticism." 
Troelstra, A. : "The Name of God in the Pentateuch" 

(-1912). 
Urquhart, J. : "The Inspiration and Accuracy of the 

Holy Scriptures" (1895). 



Selected Bibliography 239 

Various Authors: "Lex Mosaica." 

Vedder, H. C. : "The Johannine Writings and the 

Johannine Problem" (1917). 
Vos, G. : "The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuchal 

Codes" (1886). 
Wace, H. : "The Bible and Modern Investigation;" 

"Prophecy, Jewish and Christian" (1911). 
Whitelaw, T. : "The Old Testament Problem." 
Wiener, H. M. : "Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism" 

(1909); "The Origin of the Pentateuch" (1910); 

"Pentateuchal Studies" (1912). 
Wilkinson, W. C. : "Paul and the Revolt Against 

Him" (1914). 
Wilson, R. D. : "Studies in the Book of Daniel" (1917). 
Zahn, T. : "Introduction to the New Testament" (sec- 
ond edition, translated, 1917). 
Zerbe, A. S. : "The Antiquity of Hebrew Writing and 

Literature" (1911). 

SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY 

Azbill, W. K. : "Science and Faith : The Spiritual Law 
in the Physical World" (1914). 

Bavinck, H. : "The Philosophy of Revelation." 

Bettex, F. : "Science and Christianity ;" "The First 
Page of the Bible;" "The Six Days of Creation in the 
Light of Modern Science." 

Cocker, B. F. : "Christianity and Greek Philosophy" 
(1872). 

Dawson, J. W. : "Modern Ideas of Evolution as Re- 
lated to Revelation and Science" (sixth edition). 

De Tunzelmann, G. W. : "God and the Universe: A 
Physical Basis for Religion and Ethics" (1912). 



240 A System of Christian Evidence 

Dennert, E. : "At the Deathbed of Darwinism" ( 1904). 
Everett, C. C. : "Theism and the Christian Faith" 

(1909). 
Fairhurst, A. : "Organic Evolution Considered" (new 

issue, 1911); "Theistic Evolution" (1919). 
Graebner, T. : "Evolution: An Investigation and a 

Criticism" (1921). 
Gruber, L. F. : "Whence Came the Universe?" (1922; 

new edition of "Creation Ex Nihilo"). 
Haas, J. A. W. : "Trends of Thought and Christian 

Truth" (1915). 
Heagle, D. : "The Lord God of Elijah" (a criticism 

of evolution, 1916). 
Holbrook, D. G. : "The Panorama of Creation" (1908). 
Huelster, A. : "Miracles in the Light of Science and 

History" (1915). 
Johnson, W. H. : "The Christian Faith under Modern 

Searchlights" (1916). 
Jones, D. A. : "Philosophic Thought and Religion" 

(1919). 
Mauro, P.: "Evolution at the Bar" (1922). 
McCosh, J. : "Christianity and Positivism : Lectures on 

Natural Theology and Apologetics." 
Miller, J. H. : "The Bible of Nature and the Bible of 

Grace" (1919). 
Newton, J. : "The Problem of Personality." 
Patterson, A. : "The Other Side of Evolution." 
Porter, J. W. : "Evolution — A Menace" (1922). 
Price, G. M. : "Q. E. D : New Light on the Doctrine of 

Creation" (1917); "God's Two Books: Plain Facts 

about Evolution, Geology and the Bible" (1911); 

"Back to the Bible" (new and revised edition, 1920). 



Selected Bibliography 241 

Sheldon, H. C. : "Unbelief in the Nineteenth Century" 
(1907); "Pantheistic Dilemmas and Other Essays in 
Philosophy and Religion" (1920). 

Stirling, J. H. : "Philosophy and Theology." 

Townsend, J. T. : "Evolution and Creation ;" "The Col- 
lapse of Evolution" (brochure; new edition, 1922). 

WoBBERMiN, G. : "Christian Belief in God : A German 
Criticism of German Materialistic Philosophy" (trans- 
lated by Robinson, 1918). 

Wright, G. F. : "The Ice Age in North America and 
Its Bearing on the Antiquity of Man" (fifth edition) ; 
"Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History" 
(1906) ; "Origin and Antiquity of Man" (1912). 

DEFENSES OF SPECIAL DOCTRINES 

Brace, C. L. : "Gesta Christi" (sixth edition, 1910). 

Cooke, R. J. : "Outlines of the Doctrine of the Resur- 
rection, Biblical, Historical and Scientific." 

Ellicott, C. J. : "Are We to Modify Fundamental 
Doctrine ?" 

Fairbairn, A. M. : "The Place of Christ in Modern 
Theology." 

Forsyth, P. T. : "The Cruciality of the Cross" (1908) ; 
"The Person and Place of Jesus Christ" (1909); 
"The Justification of God" (1917). 

Gore, C. : "The Incarnation of the Son of God." 

Heagle, D. : "Do the Dead Still Live ? The Testimony 
of Science Respecting the Future Life" (1920). 

Hitchcock, F. R. M. : "The Mystery of the Cross." 

Hopkins, M. : "The Scriptural Idea of Man" (1883). 

FIunt, J. B. : "Existence After Death Implied by Sci- 
ence" (1910). 



242 A System of Christian Evidence 

Illingworth, J. R. : "The Doctrine of the Trinity 
Apologetically Considered" (reprint, 1909). 

Keyser, L. S.: "The Rational Test: Bible Doctrines in 
the Light of Reason" (1908). 

Kuyper, A. : "The Work of the Holy Spirit." 

Laidlaw, J. : "The Bible Doctrine of Man." 

La Touche, E. D. : "The Person of Christ in Modern 
Thought." 

Liddon, H. P.: "The Divinity of Our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ ;" "The Elements of Religion." 

Mabie, H. C. : "The Divine Reason of the Cross : A 
Study of the Atonement as the Rationale of the Uni- 
verse" (191 1 ). 

Mackintosh, H. R. : "The Doctrine of the Person of 
Christ" (1916); "The Originality of the Christian 
Message" (1920). 

Merrell, E. H. : "The Person of Christ." 

Merrill, G. E. : "The Reasonable Christ." 

Mozley, J. K. : "The Doctrine of the Atonement" 

(1916). 
.Mylne, L. G.: "The Holy Trinity: A Study of the 
Self -Revelation of God" (1916). 

Orr, J.: "God's Image in Man" (1905). 

Pratt, S. W. : "The Deity of Christ According to the 
Gospel of John" (1907). 

Quick, O. C: "Essays in Orthodoxy" (1916) ; "Mod- 
ern Philosophy and the Incarnation" (fifth edition, 
1917). 

Relton: "A Study in Christology: The Problem of the 
Two Natures in the Person of Christ" (1917). 

Remensnyder, J. B.: "The Atonement and Modern 
Thought" (1905). 



Selected Bibliography 243 

Robertson, A. T. : "The Divinity of Christ in the Gos- 
pel of John" (1916). 

Schaff, P. : "The Person of Christ : The Perfection 
of His Humanity Viewed as a Proof of His Divin- 
ity" (1882, old but valuable). 

Snowden, J. H. : "Can We Believe in Immortality ?" 

(1918). 

Stalker, J.: "Imago Christi" (1889); "The Christ- 
ology of Jesus" (1899) J "The Atonement" (1909). 

Streatfeild, G. S. : "The Incarnation" (1910) ; 
"The Self-Interpretation of Jesus Christ." 

Tisdall, W. S. : "Mythic Christs and the True." 

Thomas, W. H. G. : "Christianity is Christ" (1919). 

Townsend, J. T. : "Bible Inspiration : The Orthodox 
Point of View ;" "Discussions on the Trinity ;" 
"Bible Theology and Modern Thought." 

Torrey, R. A. : "The Fundamental Doctrines of the 
Christian Faith" (1918); "The Real Christ" (1920). 

Various Authors "The Fundamentals" (4 Vols.). 

Whitteker, J. E. : "The Separated Life : A Biblical 
Defense of the Divinity of Christ" (1909). 

Wishart, J. E. : "The Spirits of Just Men Made Per- 
fect: A Study of the Intermediate State" (1916). 

THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST 

Hall, A. C. A. : "The Virgin Mother." 

Keyser, L. S.: "The Rational Test," Chap. VI; "Con- 
tending for the Faith," Chap. XIII. (1920). 

Knowling, R. J. : "Our Lord's Virgin Birth and the 
Criticism of Today" (third issue, 1907). 

Orr, J.: "The Virgin Birth of Christ" (1907). 



244 A System of Christian Evidence 

Sweet, L. M. : "The Birth and Infancy of Jesus 
Christ" (1907). 

Thorburn, T. J.: "A Critical Examination of the Ev- 
idences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth" (1908). 

BIBLICAL DIFFICULTIES 

Christian Herald: "555 Difficult Bible Questions 

Answered" (1914). 
Gray, J. M.: "Bible Problems Explained" (1913) 
Haley, J. W. : "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible." 
Ingram, W. A. F.: "Old Testament Difficulties" 

(1909); "New Testament Difficulties" (2 Vols. 1910, 

1911); "Popular Objections to Christianity" (1911). 
Keil, K. T. : "Commentary on the Pentateuch." 
Scofield, C. I.: "Question Box" (1917). 
Torrey, R. A. : "Difficulties in the Bible." 
Tuck, R. : "A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties, or, 

Reasonable Solutions of Perplexing Things in Sacred 

Scripture." 

THE BIBLE AND ARCHEOLOGY 

Banks, E. J.: "The Bible and the Spade" (1913). 

Barton, G. A.: "Archeology and the Bible" (1916). 

Bissell, E. C. : "Biblical Antiquities : A Handbook." 

Brugsch, H. K. : "Egypt Under the Pharaohs." 

Clay, A. T. : "Light on the Old Testament from 
Babel" (1906). 

Cobern, C. M. : "The New Archeological Discoveries 
and Their Bearing on the New Testament" (1917). 

Conder, C. R. : "The Tell el Amarna Tablets," "The 
Bible and the East;" "The Hittites and Their Lan- 
guage." 



Selected Bibliography 245 

Davies, W. W. : "The Codes of Hammurabi and 
Moses" (1905). 

Grimme, H. : "The Law of Hammurabi and Moses" 
(translated by Pilter). 

Hommel, F. : "The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as Il- 
lustrated by the Monuments" (1897). 

Hoskins, F. E. : "From the Nile to Nebo : A Discus- 
sion of the Problem and Route of the Exodus" (1912). 

Koenig, E. : "The Bible and Babylon." 

Kyle, M. G. : "The Deciding Voice of the Monu- 
ments" (1912) ; "Moses and the Monuments" (1920) ; 
"The Problem of the Pentateuch : A New Solution by 
Archeological Methods" (1920). 

Naville, E. : "The Discovery of the Book of the Law 
Under King Josiah" (1911); "Archeology and the 
Old Testament" (1913). 

Price, I. M. : "The Monuments and Old Testament." 

Ramsay, W. M.: "Was Christ Born in Bethlehem?" 
"Luke the Physician and Other Studies;" "The 
Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthi- 
ness of the New Testament." 

Sayce, A. H.: "The Higher Criticism and the Monu- 
ments ;" "Monument Facts and Higher Critical Theo- 
ries;" "The Hittites, or, The Story of a Forgotten 
Empire;" "The Times of Isaiah;" "Fresh Light from 
the Ancient Monuments." 

Tomkins, H. G. : "The Life and Times of Joseph in 
the Light of Egyptian Lore." 

Urquhart, J. : "Archeology's Solution of Old Testa- 
ment Problems" (1906). 

Winckler, H. : "The Tell el Amarna Tablets." 

Wright, G. A. F. : ."Nile and Jordan" (1921). 



246 A System of Christian Evidence 

HELPFUL BOOKLETS 

Bettex, F. : "The Bible and Modern Criticism," (25 
cents.) 

Bryan, W. J. : "The Bible and Its Enemies" (25 
cents ) . 

Cairns, J. : "Christ and the Christian Faith." 

Charles, J. D. : "Fallacies of Evolution" (15 cents). 

Gray, J. M. : "The Bible's Testimony to Its Own 
Inspiration" (15 cents). 

Heyer, W. C. : "The Inspiration of the Word" (10 
cents). 

Mauro, P. : "The Historical Method of Assailing the 
Scriptures" (10 cents). 

Ovenden, C. T. : "Modern Criticism and the Holy 
Scriptures" (1913, 30 cents). 

Putnam, C. E. : "Did Moses Know?" (25 cents). 

Rogers, C. F. : "Question Time in Hyde Park" (Series 
I and II, 6d. each) ; "Why Men Believe: The Ground- 
work of Apologetics," (2s. 6d.). 

Riley, W r . B. : "The Gospel in Jonah" (25 cents) ; 
"Scientific Accuracy of the Sacred Scriptures" (10 
cents); "The Bible: Is it an Evolution or an Inspi- 
ration?" (10 cents). 

Ryle, J. C. : "Is All Scripture Inspired?" (1921, 50 
cents); "Thoughts on Higher Criticism" (20 cents). 

Schoeler, W.: "What Think Ye of the Bible?" (40 
cents). 

Stanfield, J. M. : "The Bible and Modernism" (50 
cents). 

Thomas, W. H. G.: "What About Evolution?" (10 
cents) ; "The Stronghold of Truth" (25 cents) ; "Books 



Selected Bibliography 247 

that Stand for the Faith" (an extended list of apolo- 
getic works that are soundly evangelical; 5 cents). 

Townsend, L. T. : "Collapse of Evolution" (new and 
enlarged edition, 20 cents); "Bible Inspiration: Or- 
thodox Point of View" (10 cents). 

Torrey, R. A.: "Practical and Perplexing Questions 
Answered" (30 cents). 

Trumbull, C. G. : "How I came to Believe the Bible" 
(3 cents). 

Wilson, R. D. : "Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly ?" 
(25 cents). 

A FEW BOOKS ON NATURAL THEISM 

Balfour: "Theism and Humanism." 

Bowne: "Studies in Theism." 

Davidson : "Theism as Grounded in Human Nature." 

Fisher: "The Grounds of Theistic and Christian Be- 
lief." 

Flint: "Theism" and "Anti-Theistic Theories." 

Fraser: "The Philosophy of Theism." 

Harris: "The Philosophical Basis of Theism." 

Iverach : "Theism in the Light of Present Science 
and Philosophy." 

Janet: "Final Causes." 

Kelly: "Rational Necessity of Theism" (1909). 

Keyser: "A System of Natural Theism" (1917). 

Pringle-Pattison : "The Idea of God in the Light 
of Recent Philosophy" (1917). 

Reuterdahl, A.: "Scientific Theism Versus Material- 
ism: The Space-Time Potential" (1920). 

Shebbeare: "The Challenge of the Universe" (1918). 

Snowden: "The Personality of God" (1920). 



248 A System of Christian Evidence 

Valentine: "Natural Theology, or, Rational Theism." 
Ward: "Naturalism and Agnosticism" and "The 
Realm of Ends." 

LIBERAL BOOKS 

(Excellent in some ways; defective in others) 

Ballard: "The Miracles of Unbelief." 

Bruce : "Apologetics, or Christianity Defensively Stated" 
(1912). 

Garvie: "Handbook of Christian Apologetics." 

Gore: "Belief in God" (1922). 

Harris: "Pro Fide: A Defense of Natural and Re- 
vealed Religion" (1914). 

Lidgett: "The Christian Religion: Its Meaning and 
Proof." 

Swain: "What and Where is God? A Human Answer 
to the Deep Religious Cry of the Modern Soul" 
(1921). 

OLDER APOLOGIES 

The older Apologies, dealing with English Deism, 
French Atheism and General Infidelity, though out of 
date in some respects, may still be read with much profit. 
They prove how God raised up valiant defenders of the 
faith in those trying days. We give a number of eminent 
names, with the titles only in special cases. 

Halyburton, Cudworth, Bentley, Samuel Clarke, Cone- 
beare, Lardner, Bishop Home ("Introduction to the Holy 
Scriptures") ; Butler ("The Analogy") ; Paley, Whateley, 
MTlvaine, Watson ("An Apology" in reply to Paine's 
"The Age of Reason") ; Nelson ("The Cause and Cure of 



Selected Bibliography 249 

Infidelity"); Gaussen ("Theopneustia : The Plenary In- 
spiration of the Holy Scriptures," recently reprinted) ; 
William Lee ("The Inspiration of Holy Scripture: Its 
Nature and Proof") ; Rawlinson ("The Historical 
Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records") ; 
Gleig ("The Most Wonderful Book in the World," re- 
printed, 191 5) ; "Lectures on the Evidences of Chris- 
tianity," delivered at the University of Virginia by various 
eminent scholars (1850-51). 

ADDENDUM 

After the page-forms of this work had been completed 
and locked up, the following books, entirely worthy of a 
place among the rest, came to the author's notice. The 
first belongs under the caption, "Biblical Criticism," the 
second under "Defenses of Special Doctrines," the third 
and fourth under "Helpful Booklets," the fifth under 
"General Apologies." 
Thomas, J. : "The Organic Unity of the Pentateuch" 

(1904). 

Huffman, J. A. : "Old Testament Messages of the 
Christ" (1909). 

Conant, J. E. : "The Church, the School and Evolu- 
tion" (1922; 35 cents). 

Phelps, R. G. : "The Bible: Its Inerrancy, Its Inter- 
pretation, Its Instruction" (1922; 25 cents). 

Colgrave, B., and Short, A. R. : "The Historic Faith 
in the Light of To-day" (1922). 



INDEX 



Abelard, 50. 
Agnostics, 39, 65, 188. 
All-sidedness of Biblical teaching, 

75, 76. 
Animalism, primitive, 204, 205. 
Anselm, 49, 50. 

Anti-Christian theories, 173-193. 
Apologists, why Christians should 

be capable, 26-33, 29, 34. 
Apology and Apologetics, defined, 

24, 25; in the Bible, 26-28, 44; 

history of, 47-54; 49, 55-59. 
Aquinas, T., 49, 50. 
Archeology, proofs from, 140-146, 

210, 211. 
Argument, 35, 37, 49; for the divine 

existence, 165-172. 
Arius, 49. 
Assurance, the final, 33, 77, 78, 118, 

121, 123, 124, 126, 155, 156, 188. 
Astruc, J., 52. 
Athanasius, 49, 127. 
Atheism, 31, 39, 51, 164, 173, 174. 
Atonement, 78-81. 
Augustine, 49, 125, 127. 
Authenticity, defined, 66. 
Autographs, original, 131. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 135, 136. 

Barton, G. A., 140, 141, 142, 244. 

Bateson, W., 184. 

Baur, 52, 185. 

Begbie, H., 125, 233. 

Bernard, 49, 50. 

Bibliography, selected, 230-249. 

Bible, the, a special revelation, 55- 
59; 60-162, 110-117; on organism, 
56; and Christ, 56, 57; and his- 
tory, 74; why not plain, 214, 215. 

Biogenesis, 184. 

Book, why God made one, 64. 

Braidlaugh, 223, 224. 

Bruce, A. B., 73, 103, 110, 248. 

Buddhism, 76, 83, 161, 192. 

Bunyan, J., 125. 

Burrell, D. J., 74, 113, 233, 236. 

Butler, J., 51, 171, 248. 

Cain, 40, 71, 205, 206. 

Canaanites, 208. 

Canon, the Biblical, 116, 117 

Cave, A., 110, 236. 

Causality, proofs from, 152-154. 

Cavillers, 40, 73. 

Celsus, 47, 48, 139, 218, 223. 

Christ, Bible picture of, 85-90, His 
claims, 86; His sinlessness, 86, 87; 
His spiritual insight, 87; His 
calmness, 87, 88; tributes to Him, 
88-99; wrong views of, 150-152. 

Christians, inconsistent, 45, 46. 

Christian religion, defined, 26. 

Civilization, ancient, 143-145. 

Clement of Rome, 135. 



Clifford, 191. 

Cobern, C. M., 134, 142, 143, 2A4. 

Codices, 132, 133. 

Comfort, of Biblical teaching, 78, 

79. 
Comte, A., 179. 
Confucianism, 76, 83. 
Consciousness, the Christian, 57, 58. 
Controversy, defined, 26. 
Cosmological Argument, 167. 
Creation, 140, 141, 183, 198-203. 
Criticism, Biblical, 52; proofs from, 

147-152; divisions of, 147-152, 210. 
Cumulative proofs, 66. 
Cyprian, 47, 48. 

Darwin and Darwinism, 41, 160, 

184, 185, 221. 
Debaite, public, 37. 
Deists and Deism, 31, 39, 50, 51, 54, 

65, 76, 111, 164, 175, 176. 
Dennert, E., 160, 240. 
Democritus, 30, 73. 

Difficulties, the Doubter's, 40, 198- 
215. 

Discrepancies, apparent, 210, 211. 

Doctrines, rational, 68, 69. 

Doubt, causes of, 43-46. 

Doubters, how to treat them, 24-38; 
various kinds, 38-40; their difficul- 
ties, 196-215. 

Drawbridge, C. L., 54, 234. 

Driver, S. R., 52, 149, 150, 210. 

Dualism, 187. 

Dynamic, moral, 226, 227. 

Ebionites, 47, 48. 

Ebrard, J. H. A., 25, 231. 

Edison, 30, 221, 222. 

Education, 128. 

Eichhorn, 147. 

Encyclopedism, French, 51, 52, 220. 

Esthetic Argument, 170, 171. 

Ethics, Biblical, 70-72, 81, 161, 162. 

Evidence, Christian, defined, 24; 
why preferred, 25; 41, 45; in- 
ternal and external, 56, 58, 59, 

66, 67; internal, 68-117; external, 
118-162. 

Evolution, naturalistic, 181, 182; 

theistic, 182-187; the term, 182, 

183; of man, 201, 202. 
Experience, Christian, 58, 64, 182- 

187; no delusion, 125, 126. 

Fairbairn, A. M., 159, 231, 241. 

Fairhurst, A. 146, 182, 240. 

Faith, its reasonableness, 31-33; its 

need, 197, 198. 
Fathers, apostolic and church, 135- 

138 
Faulkner, J. A., 103, 234. 
Fetichism, 145. 
Finite God, a, 189. 
Fisher, G. P., 84, 103, 110, 231, 233. 



251 



252 



Index 



Fixity of species, 184, 185. 

Flood, the Noachian, 141. 

Frankness of Biblical writers, 106, 
107. 

Free-thinkers, 39. 

French institute, 160. 

Garvie, 14, 25, 47, 248. 

Gaussen, 110, 249. 

General Argument, 166, 167. 

Genesis and Science, 198-201. 

Genuineness, defined, 65, 66; proof 
from, 155-157. 

Gibbon, 51, 154, 220. 

Gnostics, 47, 76. 

God, Biblical doctrine of, 160, 161, 
164-172; contrasted with other 
theories, 173-193; His existence 
proved, 165-172; infinite, 189. 

Graebner, T., 182, 240. 

Graf, 52, 53, 185. 

Haeckel, E., 65, 181, 185. 

Hammurabi, code of, 141. 

Hegel, 73, 185. 

Henslow, G., 41, 53, 54, 234. 

Heretics, 25, 49, 50. 

Herodotus, 131, 137. 

Hierocles, 47, 48, 218. 

Hinduism, 76, 83, 161, 176. 

History and the Bible, 74, 131-139. 

Hittities, the, 142. 

Hobbes, T., 50, 220. 

Hodge, 81. 

Holy Spirit, the, 33, 35, 37, 38, 45, 
58, 76, 77, 118, 120-123. 

Homer, 131. 

Home, Bishop, 51, 227, 248. 

Hume, 51, 220. 

Hurst, 49. 

Huxley, T., 185, 221. 

Idealism, 174, 175, 187. 
Immortality, 81, 82, 101. 
Imprecatory Psalms, 209, 210. 
Infidelity, popular, 53, 54, 185; its 

failure, 218-229. 
Infidels, 25, 37; defined, 39; 40, 41, 

48, 49, 50, 130, 134, 185, 210. 
Influence of Christianity, 127-129. 
Ingersoll, R. G., 89. 
Ingram, W. A. F., 54, 244. 
Inspiration, Biblical, 53, 69, 70, 72, 

73, 79, 84, 90, 94, 102, 107, 110- 

117, 149, 150, 166. 
Integrity, defined, 66; preserved, 

154, 155. 
Irenaeus, 47, 127, 137. 
Itala (old Latin translation), 133. 

James, W., 76, 189, 190. 

Jews, 47; care of sacred books, 134. 

Johnson, F., 113, 237. 

Johnson, H., 89, 234. 

Jonah and the whale, 209. 

Josephus, 138, 205. 



Justin Martyr, 25, 47, 48, 125, 127, 
136, 137. 

Kant, E., 30, 73, 169. 

Keil, K. T., 209, 237, 244. 

Kellogg, 70, 73, 83, 128, 146. 

Kelvin, 30, 99. 

Knowling, R. J., 103, 237, 243. 

Kyle, M. G., 141, 142, 157, 245. 

Lampooners, 40. 

Latitudinarians, 42. 

Leibnitz, 73, 171. 

Liberalists, 42, 121, 122, 150, 151. 

Lindberg, C. E., 47, 50, 118, 232. 

Lucian, 47, 48, 139, 218. 

Lucretius, 219, 220. 

MacArthur, R. S., 74, 106, 234. 

Machen, J. G., 103, 237. 

Mackintosh, R., 112. 

Man, doctrine of, 69, 70, 143, 162; 
not of brute origin, 185, 186; his 
creation, 201-203; his fall, 203- 
205; defective views of, 225, 226. 

Manuscripts, ancient, 131-135. 

Materialism, 161, 164, 173, 174, 187. 

McGarvey, J. W., 209, 232, 237. 

Methodology, defined, 55; discussed, 
55-59; wrong methods, 56-58. 

Mill, J. S., 76, 88, 189, 221. 

Miracles, 212-214. 

Mohammedanism, 83, 128. 

Monism, 187, 188. 

Moral Argument, 168-170. 

Morality, of the Bible, 36, 43, 44, 
46, 70-72; of infidelity, 227, 228. 

Muir, P. M., 53, 235. 

Mullins, E. Y., 89, 118, 157, 232, 
235. 

Muretorian Canon, 138. 

Myths, legends, etc., 74, 99. 

Napoleon, 89, 90. 

Nebular hypothesis, 159, 160. 

Nelson, D., 43, 248, 249. 

New theology, 42, 50. 

Nice, Council of, 49. 

Nitzsche, 182. 

Noachian deluge, 206. 

Noesgen, C. A., 113, 237. 

Noumena and phenomena, 178, 179. 

Ontological Argument, 171, 172. 
Origen, 47, 48. 

Origin, man's, 65, 185, 186, 201-203. 
Orr, J., 69, 73, 96, 117, 146, 157, 

160, 171, 193, 232, 235, 237, 238, 

242 243. 
Orthodoxy,' 42, 67, 149. 
Paine, T., 210, 220, 223. 
Paley, 51, 248. 
Pantheism, 39,' 75, 76, 161, 176, 177, 

187. 
Patton, F. L., 29. 
Pelagius, 49. 



Index 



253 



Pentateuch, 155-157. 

Persecution, 129, 130. 

Persuasion, 28. 

Peshito, 133. 

Pessimism, 191-193. 

Pharaoh, 208. 

Philosophy, 30, 40, 69, 75, 76, 81, 

162, 165. 
Pierson, A. T., 73, 74, 110, 232. 
Pithom, the city of, 142. 
Plato, 30, 73, 76, 131, 171. 
Pliny, 138, 139. 
Pluralism, 190, 191. 
Polemics, 25, 49. 
Polycarp, 127, 136. 
Porphyry, 47, 49, 52, 139, 218, 223. 
Positivism, 64, 65, 161, 177-180. 
Pringle-Pattison, 190, 191. 
Printing, 134. 
Probaible proof, 66. 
Problems, 30, 79, 224, 225. 
Prophecy, 107-110. 
Psychology, Biblical, 82, 83 ; false 

views of, 124. 
Pyrrhonism, 39. 

Ramsay, W. M., 142, 143, 157, 245. 

Rationalism, 31, 33, 40, 41, 48, 52- 
54, 91, 111, 118. 

Rawlinson, 137, 249. 

Reason, value and limits, 28-33; 
used with doubters, 34, 52. 

Red Sea, crossing of, 206, 207. 

Relevancy of the Bible, 76-83. 

Religion, defined, 26; history of, 
145, 146. 

Remensnyder, J. B., 81, 242. 

Renan, 88, 96, 154. 

Resurrection of Christ, 95-102; theo- 
ries of, 95-98; positive proofs, 98- 
102; nature of His risen body, 
101, 102. 

Revelation, special, 62-162; probabil- 
ity, possibility and need, 62-64. 

Rishell, W. R., 25, 29, 232. 

Robertson, A. T., 103, 107, 238. 

Robinson, G. L., 157, 238. 

Rousseau, 51. 

Russell, 30. 

Ryle, J. C, 110, 122, 246. 

Salvation, doctrine of, 70. 

Saphir, A., 74, 235. 

Savonarola, 50. 

Sayce, A. H., 144, 157, 245. 

Schaff, P., 48, 73, 89, 90, 131, 132, 

139, 243. 
Science, proofs from, 158-162. 
Scholarship, 29, 33, 148, 149. 
Schmid, H., 33, 69, 81, 110. 
Schopenhauer, 191. 
Scott, C. F., 28, 49, 54, 76. 
Secularists, 39, 40. 
Secular writers, witness of, 138, 139. 
Septuagint, the, 132, 133. 



Sheldon, H. C, 190, 193, 241. 

Sin, its origin, 203-205; why per- 
mitted, 211. 

Skeptics, 34, 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 65, 
85, 91, 192, 193. 

Smith, Goldwin, 227. 

Snowden, J. H., 188, 243, 247. 

Soberness of Bible teaching, 74, 75. 

Socrates, 30. 

Spencer, H., 185, 188, 221. 

Spinoza, 30, 52, 73, 187. 

Spontaneous generation, 159, 182, 
184. 

Spurgeon, C, 43. 

Stalker, J., 81, 143. 

Stearns, L. F., 118, 232. 

Strauss, 52, 88, 96, 154, 185. 

Stuart, T. M., 110, 238. 

Stubb, J. A. O., 110, 235. 

Stump, J., 110, 233. 

Substitutes for Christianity, 64. 

Syrian version, an early, 134, 135. 

Tacitus, 138. 

Talmud, 133. 

Targums, 133. 

Teleological Argument, 167, 168. 

Tennyson, 45. 

Tertullian, 47, 48, 137. . 

Theism, Christian, 164-172; con- 
trasted with other views, 173-193; 
defined, 165. 

Tisdall, W. S. C, 83, 128, 146, 235. 

Transmutation of species, 159, 182, 
184. 

Turton, W. H., 110, 139, 142, 157, 
233. 

Underwood, 70, 73. 

Unity of Bible teaching, 72-74. 

Urquhart, J., 51, 238, 245. 

Valentine, M., 146, 248. 

Virgil, 131. 

Voltaire, 48, 51, 52, 210, 220, 223. 

Von Hartmann, 191. 

Vulgate, the, 133. 

Watson, Bishop, 25, 248. 

Watson, T., 49, 236. 

Wellhausen, 52, 53, 185. 

Wells, A. R., 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 

106, 110, 128, 131, 137, 142, 157, 

233 
Wells," H. G., 76, 189, 190, 226. 
Wescott, 117, 131, 132. 
Wilkinson, W. C, 103, 239. 
Wilson, R. D., 157, 209, 239, 247. 
Witness of the apostles, 90-102. 
Woman and the Bible, 128; her 

creation, 201-203. 
World-view, the Biblical, 160-162, 

164-172; other views compared, 

173-193. 
Wright, G. F., 134, 206, 233, 241. 
Wrongs done in Christianity's name, 

129, 130. 



